-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
W
Magenta, these are lists of various practices as well as some doctrines of the Church. This sight is trying to show how it feels that these particular doctrines are in contradiction to the Bible. That is fine, each one of those citations would require an individual conversation. But this is not the point we are talking about, the point you responded to was that the Catholic church has proclaimed a unified body of dogma for 2,000 years; meaning the Church has not changed dogma nor has it divided itself into fragments. This is the point that we were talking about. So to refute this point you would have to show where the Church taught one thing at one time and then later changed that teaching.
Also the majority of the things on this list are not doctrines but rather disiplines or practices. But that is a whole other point.
But in my conversation with you I am still more interested in my previous question to you: could you please explain to me how the original canon of the Bible was formed and when you believe the Catholic Church assembled its "new canon"? Like I said, it would be helpful for me if you could point to actual historical data for what you are saying
Also the majority of the things on this list are not doctrines but rather disiplines or practices. But that is a whole other point.
But in my conversation with you I am still more interested in my previous question to you: could you please explain to me how the original canon of the Bible was formed and when you believe the Catholic Church assembled its "new canon"? Like I said, it would be helpful for me if you could point to actual historical data for what you are saying
W
You realize of course that you are not providing any evidence or reasoning for any of your claims. As I said I would be interested to see what your Biblical vision is and how this point about individuals fits into it. As it stands you have mostly just told me "you are wrong and I am right".
Also, with a verse like Matt 16:18, Jesus says directly "on this rock (Peter)" I will build my Church. So yes, we agree of course, it is Jesus' Church, but He still says He will build it upon Peter. Or take Ephesians 2:20 as another example, it speaks of the Church being "built on the foundation of the apostles" and Christ being the "capstone". God's dominion and guidance over the church is in no way compromised here, but it does show that He builds it upon the Apostles.
If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, but at least give me some other scriptural references that somehow demonstrate your point and show mine to be wrong
Also, with a verse like Matt 16:18, Jesus says directly "on this rock (Peter)" I will build my Church. So yes, we agree of course, it is Jesus' Church, but He still says He will build it upon Peter. Or take Ephesians 2:20 as another example, it speaks of the Church being "built on the foundation of the apostles" and Christ being the "capstone". God's dominion and guidance over the church is in no way compromised here, but it does show that He builds it upon the Apostles.
If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, but at least give me some other scriptural references that somehow demonstrate your point and show mine to be wrong
Before I reply let me say I believe a great many catholics are indeed saved. That said Jesus was referring to Peter's faith as the rock upon which He would build His church, not Peter himself. If we read that verse in context we will see that it was Peter's faith that moved Jesus.
Also in Ephesians it is again the faith of those apostles and not the apostles themselves that are the foundation with Christ being the cornerstone. Think about it, if it was the specific persons Jesus and Paul were referring to then one or the other of the verses would be false and we know that can not be the case.
Last edited:
There's one thing I know for sure MMD,
There are TOO MANY denominations.
Anyway, it IS 33,000.
Here's an article from 2005. I don't have the time to update. I'm sure we're up to 33,000 by now.
It's shameful and shows that there is not ONE DOCTRINE that could be depended on.
We cannot even agree if WORKS ARE REQUIRED.
What more so say? When Jesus CLEARLY stated this...
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?
by Dave1988 and others from the Catholic Answers boards
posted April 12, 2005 05:52 PM itsjustdave1988
see also Part II: The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations"
First, information from Catholic apologist and Evangelical convert Dave Armstrong --
There are indeed sources for these numbers and they are neither Catholic nor unscholarly. To summarize briefly:
According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): "As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . ." ("Denominationalism," page 351). I have this book, so I have seen this with my own eyes. Barrett "classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions." This is from the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) of which he is the editor. Also, according to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities [U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989]). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer's book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox. The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: "In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide." (edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. "Denomination"). Barrett is the statistical editor. Again citing the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982): ". . . a projected 22,190 by 1985 . . . The present net increase is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week)." (pages 15-18)
The definition Barrett worked with was that a denomination was "an organized Christian Church or tradition or religious group or community of believers or aggregate of worship centers or congregations, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions."
Now, this is where the figures ultimately come from. No doubt some Catholic apologists (even more well-known ones) use them as a kind of "folk truth" -- having heard them bandied about, and we will examine some serious problems with them below. But that doesn't mean the numbers were entirely made-up and arbitrary. As we see, this is untrue: they come from these sources.
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? the 20,000 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics
There are TOO MANY denominations.
Anyway, it IS 33,000.
Here's an article from 2005. I don't have the time to update. I'm sure we're up to 33,000 by now.
It's shameful and shows that there is not ONE DOCTRINE that could be depended on.
We cannot even agree if WORKS ARE REQUIRED.
What more so say? When Jesus CLEARLY stated this...
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?
by Dave1988 and others from the Catholic Answers boards
posted April 12, 2005 05:52 PM itsjustdave1988
see also Part II: The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations"
First, information from Catholic apologist and Evangelical convert Dave Armstrong --
There are indeed sources for these numbers and they are neither Catholic nor unscholarly. To summarize briefly:
According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): "As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . ." ("Denominationalism," page 351). I have this book, so I have seen this with my own eyes. Barrett "classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions." This is from the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) of which he is the editor. Also, according to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities [U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989]). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer's book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox. The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: "In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide." (edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. "Denomination"). Barrett is the statistical editor. Again citing the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982): ". . . a projected 22,190 by 1985 . . . The present net increase is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week)." (pages 15-18)
The definition Barrett worked with was that a denomination was "an organized Christian Church or tradition or religious group or community of believers or aggregate of worship centers or congregations, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions."
Now, this is where the figures ultimately come from. No doubt some Catholic apologists (even more well-known ones) use them as a kind of "folk truth" -- having heard them bandied about, and we will examine some serious problems with them below. But that doesn't mean the numbers were entirely made-up and arbitrary. As we see, this is untrue: they come from these sources.
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? the 20,000 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics
W
Thanks for believing there is hope for me heh.
Yes, I agree the context is important here, but I think we have to look not only at the context of the verse as a whole, but also the context which Jesus invokes when He cites nearly verbatum Isaiah 22:22 "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
The passage refers to the chief steward of the kingdom of David who would help rule the kingdom with the king; he is the one who was given the keys as the passage shows. It seems that Jesus is invoking this context by citing these words and applying them to Peter. Thus it seems like a person and an office are the focus.
I guess I am not totally sure what is meant by building a church on an act of faith either. But obviously this is a topic that would require a lot of exegesis, you're right, but my initial point in these last posts is not to necessarily try to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic interpretation is the correct one, but rather to show that what we are dealing with here is not the Catholic Church which ignores the Bible and just listens to the Pope vs. Protestants who alone follow the Bible. We are dealing with debates in Biblical interpretation
Yes, I agree the context is important here, but I think we have to look not only at the context of the verse as a whole, but also the context which Jesus invokes when He cites nearly verbatum Isaiah 22:22 "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
The passage refers to the chief steward of the kingdom of David who would help rule the kingdom with the king; he is the one who was given the keys as the passage shows. It seems that Jesus is invoking this context by citing these words and applying them to Peter. Thus it seems like a person and an office are the focus.
I guess I am not totally sure what is meant by building a church on an act of faith either. But obviously this is a topic that would require a lot of exegesis, you're right, but my initial point in these last posts is not to necessarily try to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic interpretation is the correct one, but rather to show that what we are dealing with here is not the Catholic Church which ignores the Bible and just listens to the Pope vs. Protestants who alone follow the Bible. We are dealing with debates in Biblical interpretation
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? by Dave1988 and others from the Catholic Answers boards? No thanks. I believe Joe Mizzi from the justforcatholics.org website:
The Lie of 30000 Protestant Denominations
The Lie of 30000 Protestant Denominations
W
I find it interesting that your entrance point in this conversation has neither to do with my initial post which you cited, nor the current discussions that are going on, but with this seemingly random question (or possible accusation?). But anyways I guess I would be curious to know what you think of passages such as:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:22-23)
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective (James 5:1)
To your point that only God forgives sin, this is certainly true, and you would be wrong if you think Catholics somehow deny this. But we do recognize God's choice to work in and through His Church, as especially this passage from John states. It is precisely because Christ is giving His Spirit to His Apostles that they are enabled to carry on His work with Him on earth as He ascends to heaven.
That is a key point for us as Catholics. Christ didn't just come down and die and then say, well I'm finished here, see you at the final judgment. He instead gives His Spirit here and at Pentecost to His disciples to allow them to continue the mission He has initiated.
So Catholics do not believe in "Men" taking the place of God, as apparently many think we do, but rather, God choosing to use Men as instruments in His mission. And for some reason no one has picked up on this point that I now repeat for like the 5th time, we ALL believe that God has atleast done this with the authors of the Scriptures, that is, inspired "men" to be His instruments to convey infallible truth. So there is no reason in principle we should deny that He could do the same in guiding the decisions of the Pope and the Church, as well as in using men as instruments/agents of His mercy on earth
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:22-23)
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective (James 5:1)
To your point that only God forgives sin, this is certainly true, and you would be wrong if you think Catholics somehow deny this. But we do recognize God's choice to work in and through His Church, as especially this passage from John states. It is precisely because Christ is giving His Spirit to His Apostles that they are enabled to carry on His work with Him on earth as He ascends to heaven.
That is a key point for us as Catholics. Christ didn't just come down and die and then say, well I'm finished here, see you at the final judgment. He instead gives His Spirit here and at Pentecost to His disciples to allow them to continue the mission He has initiated.
So Catholics do not believe in "Men" taking the place of God, as apparently many think we do, but rather, God choosing to use Men as instruments in His mission. And for some reason no one has picked up on this point that I now repeat for like the 5th time, we ALL believe that God has atleast done this with the authors of the Scriptures, that is, inspired "men" to be His instruments to convey infallible truth. So there is no reason in principle we should deny that He could do the same in guiding the decisions of the Pope and the Church, as well as in using men as instruments/agents of His mercy on earth
W
Again, I think we are missing the point here. Whether it is 33,000 or 8,000, it is still a few thousand too many. John 17 seems to show that Jesus' intention was clearly one church. Do we believe that He gave us any means of achieving this goal? Did He establish any kinds of organization and structure that could help the Church be unified?
I realize that many have refered to the Spirit simply inspiring the individual, but clearly this principle results in many, many different interpretations. I too ask the Spirit for guidance when I meditate upon God's Word, but certainly most of you believe me to be greatly deceived. So what does that say about your principle?
It seems that this whole issue points to a need for a unified principle of interpretation, and I wonder why it is that you think Jesus did not provide us with anything (or at least anything that has proven successul)?
I realize that many have refered to the Spirit simply inspiring the individual, but clearly this principle results in many, many different interpretations. I too ask the Spirit for guidance when I meditate upon God's Word, but certainly most of you believe me to be greatly deceived. So what does that say about your principle?
It seems that this whole issue points to a need for a unified principle of interpretation, and I wonder why it is that you think Jesus did not provide us with anything (or at least anything that has proven successul)?
W
Sorry to bug you on this Magenta, but I am still waiting for that response about the differences of canon's you mentioned, it would really help me out to know which historical instances you were actually refering too when you said that there was an original Biblical canon created and then later the Catholics created a new one
Regardless of what denominational or non-denominational church one attends, the One True Church is the body of Christ, which is made up of all genuine born again Christians (Colossians 1:18,24) and is not simply a building with a name stamped on it. - Pillar and ground of truth
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You are taking liberty with the verse as it is written. Jesus is clearly not saying that the eternal living church would be build on Peter. The original Greek thoroughly refutes this contention and the reason rome continues this error is wholly self serving.
Jesus is the chief cornerstone and we are the lively stones. Verse 5 in 1 Peter 2. Peter certainly understood what Christ was teaching even if rome denies it. Just like Judaism they covet power and lordship at the expense of truth.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Isaiah 28:16 is the OT reference.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You are taking liberty with the verse as it is written. Jesus is clearly not saying that the eternal living church would be build on Peter. The original Greek thoroughly refutes this contention and the reason rome continues this error is wholly self serving.
Jesus is the chief cornerstone and we are the lively stones. Verse 5 in 1 Peter 2. Peter certainly understood what Christ was teaching even if rome denies it. Just like Judaism they covet power and lordship at the expense of truth.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Isaiah 28:16 is the OT reference.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Good questions WimpyPete. I am neither Catholic nor Protestant (Reformed) so all I can say is study Gospel truth as found in the Bible. According to Scripture all men everywhere are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30) which means that God holds every person responsible for how they respond to the Gospel. At the same time, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit draw all men to Christ, but in the end the hearer must respond in repentance and faith.
It seems what you are looking for is a group of men that stepped up and claimed to be the authority and distributor of all doctrine and truth as the Roman Catholic Church did, but before them. The thing is that men have no authority in that way, and Jesus ALONE is the head of HIS church. The doctrine you're looking for was described by the early church fathers, like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Papias of Hierapolis to name a few. Their writings lay out Christian doctrine pretty well in my opinion, and describe the truth His Spirit has opened my eyes and led me personally to, but this need for a man made organization to tell us what's right and wrong is a false notion found nowhere in scripture. Jesus said His Spirit will lead us to all truth, not the RCC, or the Watchtower society, or any other corruptible men. This very idea is one implanted and driven in by the RCC to keep you reliant on them and them alone, and is based on them claiming to be that and nothing else.
I'm telling you man that His Spirit is a very real thing that I can't "show" you, nor can the RCC declare you "saved" either. God has to show you, and until He does it's all just words. So as long as you love the "RCC", then no one will ever be able to lead you to truth, you have to love Jesus more and before the RCC and anything else. The RCC is not the author and distributor of all truth as they tell you they are, Jesus alone is, and if you start from scratch with no preconceived notions and read the Bible you will see how off the RCC really is, but if your only angle is defending the RCC and proving them right then there is no way you will ever see it. That goes for anyone and any ideology as well though, truly seeking God isn't as easy as it sounds. It took me losing a limb for me to even start asking questions and looking into to roots of these beliefs.
I think one of the biggest shocks I had after my eyes were open was how many groups claim to be "Christian" that are anything but. Do I represent all truth? Nope, nor does the name above the building where my church gathers, but the truth lives in each and every true believer He indwells, and there's not a man made organization out there that dictates it either, not even the RCC. I just see what you keep asking for and see it is all built on the false notions that the RCC has planted in your head. If you want truth then truly hit your knees and ask for it, because even if we gave you exactly what you're asking for it would be no different that what you already have.
I'm telling you man that His Spirit is a very real thing that I can't "show" you, nor can the RCC declare you "saved" either. God has to show you, and until He does it's all just words. So as long as you love the "RCC", then no one will ever be able to lead you to truth, you have to love Jesus more and before the RCC and anything else. The RCC is not the author and distributor of all truth as they tell you they are, Jesus alone is, and if you start from scratch with no preconceived notions and read the Bible you will see how off the RCC really is, but if your only angle is defending the RCC and proving them right then there is no way you will ever see it. That goes for anyone and any ideology as well though, truly seeking God isn't as easy as it sounds. It took me losing a limb for me to even start asking questions and looking into to roots of these beliefs.
I think one of the biggest shocks I had after my eyes were open was how many groups claim to be "Christian" that are anything but. Do I represent all truth? Nope, nor does the name above the building where my church gathers, but the truth lives in each and every true believer He indwells, and there's not a man made organization out there that dictates it either, not even the RCC. I just see what you keep asking for and see it is all built on the false notions that the RCC has planted in your head. If you want truth then truly hit your knees and ask for it, because even if we gave you exactly what you're asking for it would be no different that what you already have.
Last edited: