How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? [vanity]

[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)

[vladimir998]

“There’s so much Judaiphobia in the church that it has forgotten its roots.”

You comment is completely wrong.

1) Your comment would only make sense if none of the early Christians were Jews.

2) Luke, who was Greek and not a Jew, still gives no hint of a merely symbolic understanding of the Last Supper.

3)The tactic you’re using is intellectually dishonest. To claim that those who hold a more ancient and more orthodox view than yours must somehow be tainted by “Judaiphobia” is beyond asanine.

“I wouldn’t call this “illogic.” All the signs are screaming, symbol! symbol! symbol!”

And they are also shouting “fulfillment of Jesus’ own words in John 6” and that’s exactly how ancient Christians took them.

“At best the R.C. take is confused. At worst it’s idolatry.”

It’s neither. At best the Protestant take is intellectually dishonest. At worst it is a rejection of Christ and His very own words.

[vladimir998]

Yes, and you might want to read it: Matthew 5:22.

[vladimir998]

“DAMN! Can’t you guys preach a STRONG message?”

Some can, some can’t.

“Get RID of those who WILL not toe the line!”

It amazes me how contradictory anti-Catholics are. One minute they’re complaining about how authoritarian they think the Catholic Church is, and the next they’re demanding we toss people out. That just shows how warped of a mental illness anti-Catholicism is.

[vladimir998]

You wrote in one post:

“No; He gave it to the APOSTLES. It’s plain to read: “Unless YOU...”

In another you wrote:

“Someone opens their Bible, reads what the LORD said and assumes it is to them directly. You guys ain’t Apostles; why do want to do what Jesus told THEM to do?”

Jesus actually said “Do this in memory of me” - which means He expected them to continue it after His time with them was over.

And Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians (chapter 11) shows that the practice of the Eucharist was passed down to new Christians. Paul was NOT at the Last Supper. Yet he passed on what he learned from the Lord about it.

1 Cor 11:20, 26 makes it plan it was to continue.

[boatbums]

Neither the Bereans, nor you, are qualified to judge apostolic doctrine. You either receive it or reject it, as is evidenced by one's works. Only the LORD himself, or other apostles, can judge apostolic doctrine.

The Jews in Berea applied seriously to the study of the word preached unto them. They not only heard Paul preach on the sabbath, but daily searched the Scriptures, and compared what they read with the facts related to them. The doctrine of Christ does not fear inquiry; advocates for his cause desire no more than that people will fully and fairly examine whether things are so or not. Those are truly noble, and likely to be more and more so, who make the Scriptures their rule, and consult them accordingly. May all the hearers of the gospel become like those of Berea, receiving the word with readiness of mind, and searching the Scriptures daily, whether the things preached to them are so. Matthew Henry's Commentary

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I say based on my own authority - I have none - but on the authority of the word of God. The Bereans were "more noble" than others because they received the gospel with eagerness and referred to the sacred Scriptures to ensure that they remained true to the teachings of God. If we are supposed to blindly accept the authority of others based on the claims they make for themselves, then why in so many places are we exhorted to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (I Jn. 4:1) or "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (Matt. 7:15) or "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (I Thess. 5:21)? What do we have that enables us to do that if not the word of God?

What "qualifies" a person to judge Apostolic teaching? Was Paul wrong to confront Peter, "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:11,12)?

Did Peter, as an Apostle, have absolute authority so that NO ONE could challenge his acts or teaching? Or was Paul justified in calling him out and exposing his duplicity? What gave Paul the authority to do that? Can only Apostles challenge other Apostles? DO you contend that we have living Apostles today? You either receive or reject that teachings of the Holy Spirit as they have been written down for us as our "rule of faith". No man has authority OVER the word, but must be in subjection to it as unto the Lord because it IS from God.

Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” (Luke 6:46-49)

[af_vet_1981]

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I say based on my own authority - I have none - but on the authority of the word of God. The Bereans were "more noble" than others because they received the gospel with eagerness and referred to the sacred Scriptures to ensure that they remained true to the teachings of God. If we are supposed to blindly accept the authority of others based on the claims they make for themselves, then why in so many places are we exhorted to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (I Jn. 4:1) or "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (Matt. 7:15) or "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (I Thess. 5:21)? What do we have that enables us to do that if not the word of God?

What "qualifies" a person to judge Apostolic teaching? Was Paul wrong to confront Peter, "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:11,12)?

Did Peter, as an Apostle, have absolute authority so that NO ONE could challenge his acts or teaching? Or was Paul justified in calling him out and exposing his duplicity? What gave Paul the authority to do that? Can only Apostles challenge other Apostles? DO you contend that we have living Apostles today? You either receive or reject that teachings of the Holy Spirit as they have been written down for us as our "rule of faith". No man has authority OVER the word, but must be in subjection to it as unto the Lord because it IS from God.

1. It seems to me some try to stretch the Bereans into something they were not to support a certain model of Christian behavior, namely hear what a preacher/teacher has to say and then look it up in the Bible to see if it is true. The Bereans were Jews who were evangelzed by a true Jewish Apostle. Their example reminds me of And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. In every case I find there were Jews who received the teaching and believed, and Jews who rejected the teaching and believed not. The Berean model only made sense in the context of the lost sheep of the House of Israel.
2. Paul judged Peter's behavior, which set an erroneous example that caused others to stumble about Jewish-Gentile relations in the holy catholic apostolic church, which was somewhat new and uncharted ground. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? OTOH, Peter judged Paul's doctrine, and found it correct but misinterpreted. To judge a (true) apostle's doctrine, one must be an apostle, and yes the scriptures are apostolic. The issue is in personal interpretation which threatens one with destruction. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
3. The Apostles and Prophets upon whom the holy catholic apostolic church is built, with the LORD Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone, are the original Jewish apostles and prophets found in the scriptures themselves. Those apostles appointed elders and bishops to provide for the continuance the apostolic commission in the church. They chose the original bishops and elders, who chose other bishops and elders in an unending succession until now. If some of the Gentiles chosen turned out to be evil, like Judas or others of the first century Jews were, that did not extinguish the rest of the seed. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
4. As to who has authority, it is the LORD Jess Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father. He used the beloved Apostle John to write, addressing the angel of the holy Catholic apostolic church at Ephesus, Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

[af_vet_1981]

Edit: it is the LORD Jesus Christ

[imardmd1]

af_vet_1981: >>The word you have as "true" does not appear in the KJV in Acts 17:11.<<

CynicalBear So when they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was so you say it may still not be true? Got it.

Here's how Paul explained certain Scriptures to the Thessalonikans, according to Luke:

>> "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia,
>> they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
>> And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
>> and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
>> Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered,
>> and risen again from the dead;
>> and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ" (Ac. 17:1-3 AV).

What Paul was showing them from Scripture that Jesus was/is Messiah. Some of the Jews and many Greeks believed, but some of the Jews did not.

It was not said that any of the Thessalonikans searched the Scriptures daily, through the two to three weeks that Paul and his crew were there, to see if the Scriptures did validate Paul's thesis that Jesus is Messiah = The Anointed One = the Christ; that is, "if it was so."

But going on further to where the Bereans did search the Scriptures daily, we blithely assume that the same message was preached to them (although the passage does not say so); and, assuming that was the message, that their search was to determine if the Scriptures verified that Jesus is The Christ.

Some Thessalonikans did believe this, but some didn't, whether or not they did the Scripture scrutiny. Likewise, some of the Bereans did believe in Paul's gospel, but some did not, although they all were more noble than their neighbors in their method of fact-checking. However, just because some believed in the proposition does not make it true, any more than some not believing does not make it false. The passage only clearly affirms that some did believe in either location, and some did not,

Furthermore, the passage only affirms that the Bereans were open-minded enough to compare Paul's thesis with Scripture. It does not say what the results of the comparison were, nor what passages of Tanakh were considered. But the passage also says that many, but not all, of the Bereans were convinced enough by Paul's arguments to believe something, presumably that Jesus is Messiah. The passages says nothing about the truth of the hypothesis that Jesus was Messiah/Christ, only that it was preached to the Thessalonikans.

So it seems to me that af_vet_1981 is quite correct in his summary of what the passage says, and what it does not say regarding "truth" in the matter. I believe he is insisting that nothing be read into the passage that is not there, and I agree with that kind of rule for the literal aspect of hermeneutics.

[daniel1212]

I love that when threads like this are opened with the blatant intention to bash "Protestants" - and, supposedly, ALL non-Catholic Christians are - and exalt the Roman Catholic church, it gets turned into a rebuttal filled with the truth of God's word and the clear message of the Gospel of the grace of God who gives to us eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. I guess we CAN say "thanks Catholics". ☺

Thank God, again.

[boatbums]

The continuance of the Apostolic gospel was one of MESSAGE and not of an official office of Apostle. There are no Apostles today - not in the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church or in any other church. What we have is the teachings of the Apostles and THAT is what continues to be proclaimed as it is taught in their writings which are divinely-inspired Scripture. The unlearned and unstable are the ones who twist Scripture - to their own destruction - and how we know is we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.(I Cor. 2:12,13)

[Elsie]

Hey!

I was going to post this!

10 Hail Mary’s for ME!!!

[Elsie]

These never ending threads make ME want to imbibe!

[Elsie]

The Arminians and Calvinists here believe they are saved by grace through faith.

Fools!

Where'd they EVER get a silly idea like THAT??

Hebrews chapter 11 maybe?

[Elsie]

If it was about getting every single doctrine right, we would all be damned.

[Elsie]

God didn’t say “Do you feel lucky, punk, have you figured out all the teachings.”

He (Jesus) DID say; when asked point blank what GOD requires; answered:

John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?

 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

[Elsie]

Yep, I defintely meant “imbued”.

[Elsie]

To think that Jesus would command His followers to break the Law by consuming blood is ludicrous.

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.

(Acts 15:28,29)

[Elsie]

2) Luke, who was Greek and not a Jew, still gives no hint of a merely symbolic understanding of the Last Supper.

Arguing from silence?

[Elsie]

Matthew 5:22 New International Version

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

 

 

Oh?

 

Galatians 3

¹ You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. ² I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? ³ Are you so foolish ? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? ⁴ Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? ⁵ So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? ⁶ So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

⁷ Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. ⁸ Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” ⁹ So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

¹⁰ For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” ¹¹ Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” ¹² The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” ¹⁴ He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

[Elsie]

That just shows how warped of a mental illness anti-Catholicism is.

Oh?

Most rational folks would see it as PROOF that Catholicism really doesn't practice what it preaches.