-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
who are Protestants
- Thread starter Rhamiel
- Start date
- Mar 27, 2007
- 39,210
- 6,730
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes, the number is high because the study was faulty. For instance, it counted a house church as a denomination. Heck, the same study named 223 denominations of Catholism.
ETA: Here is a website where you can read more about it. http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hentenza
Though the 7 main "denomination families" is more then enough to show the disunity of Protestantism...
Z, I have no clue how many there are.
It is a bad number and has been debunked, not a good argument at all.LOL!!! The number that I have seen be argued is 30,000 not 300,000.
BTW- *whispers* That has been debunked.
Though the 7 main "denomination families" is more then enough to show the disunity of Protestantism...
Z, I have no clue how many there are.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 39,210
- 6,730
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Actually, the 7 denominations of Protestanism, the several factions of Catholicism, the EO, etc. No disunity that I can see.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
One thing I'd like to clarify.. Protestants and Catholics each have their own versions of history which amount to "our side of the story". Both sides assume that the other is skewing the facts in to make themselves look better and both sides are pretty much right because both sides do exactly that.
For example, Catholics now kind of have a PR line that the Catholic Church has always encouraged personal bible reading and always wanted the people to have access to the word and have the liturgy be accessible etc.
Well, the reality is that for numerous reasons, there was very little access to the word prior to the reformation, and in most places the even the liturgy was largely inaccessible because it was in an incomprehensible language. The ringing of the alter bell at the epiclesis is an example of this. This practice originated because the common people couldn't follow the liturgy so they needed a sign to tell them when the consecration was occuring. This was partly due to the fact that in many places the people had essentially begun to hold their own mini services during the mass because they couldn't understand anything that was going on in the main service and the bell was a signal to pay attention because the (most) important part was happening.
So it is true that both word and liturgy were largely inaccessible.. if that were not the case the reformation might never have occured. (pure speculation I realize)
On the other side of the coin, protestant frequently alledge that the Catholics were terrible persecutors of the poor down trodden protestants who wanted nothing more than to worship in peace.. and that the Catholic Church absolutely refused to translate the bible into vernacular languages.
The reality is that the protestants were usually just as quick to persecute and oppress Catholics (and other protestants) and there were actually vernacular language translations of scripture prior to the reformation done by the Catholic Church. In fact there were local language translations of scripture (though usually not the entire bible due to cost and ability) going back to the 4th century AD. In the middle ages when translations were done, it was usually having the language of the common people written in between the lines of the latin bible so that it could be read to the common people.
The reality is that even until well after the reformation the vast majority of the common people were illiterate and couldn't have read the bible even if it was in their own language. Prior to the reformation and the printing press, even many scholars never had or rarely even saw a complete bible in Latin because the production of such a vast work was so extremely expensive, and difficult.
Some Churches had the bible (or as much as they posessed anyway) chained to a podium in the Church with a reader on duty so that the people could come in and hear the word being read at almost any time of the day.
The real issue with Tyndale in particular was not that he translated the bible.. it was that he injected his own anti-catholic doctrinal positions into his translation. Which is not to say he was deliberately inacurate, but rather he chose viable translations which happened to suite his views.
For example, he translated Presbyter as "elder" and Episcopos as "overseer" which are valid, literal translations, but were pointedly used against the Church higherarchy and the Catholic practice of translating the words according to their transliterated titles (priest and bishop), rather than the literal meaning. So the translation is not inaccurate technically.
This, one difference alone had a huge effect on ecclesiology and Church leadership. Tyndale was pushing an egalitarian, anti-clergy model and he was largely successful as we look at the protestant Church today.
While many protestants today would claim Tyndale's version is more accurate, what he did in effect was exchange a transliteration for a translation in an attempt to destroy the use of a title.
For example, the title Duke, in english comes from the Latin Dux, which means generically 'leader'.. so this would be like insisting that you must refer to Duke's as simply "leader".
Another example would be to take the word Apostle. What the word Apostle actually means is "one who is sent"... So we could insist that when the bible says "Apostle" it is actually inaccurate and it should say simply "one who is sent".
The Church, from as far back as we have writings used the words presbyter and episcopos, not as descriptions, but as titles. A presbyter was not called a presbtyer (elder) because he was old.. he was called that because he held a position of guidance and respect within the community. There is actually no age requirement for the office of Presbyter "elder".
Many modern protestant church's ecclesiology and leadership, is built on the belief that those words are descriptions, not titles.. in other words they describes roles, not offices. The reason for this is because offices by definition carry authority, but if someone is just playing the role it doesn't imply authority.
Tyndale essentially created that doctrine with his translation.
Another example is Tyndale using the world "congregation" instead of "Church". and repentance instead of penance.
In the case of repentance and penance, the words essentially mean the same thing, they are both derivatives of the word penitent, or to feel sorry or to feel regret. Tyndale was merely playing off a difference in conotation, that penance in practice conotated outward action to demonstrate one's remorse, while repentance didn't necessarily conotate outward action.
In the case of Church vs. Congregation again the issue was largely an attack on the idea of Church authority. The word Church comes from the greek Kirke meaning "Of the Lord" it was used to refer to the assembly of God's people because they were the people "of the Lord". However, the word Church had an established meaning referring to a visible body with a heirarchy and authority etc. By using the word congregation instead, Tyndale was able to lay a foundation for the Church to be defined as a loose association of individuals.. a group of individuals who come together.. not a corperate entity bound together, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Also, Tyndale was attacked and even declared a heretic and his arrest ordered by the Catholic Church. However, his arrest and execution was actually affected by Henry VIII, primarily because he had written public tracts opposing the King's divorce and calling the King on the carpet for his behavior.
For example, Catholics now kind of have a PR line that the Catholic Church has always encouraged personal bible reading and always wanted the people to have access to the word and have the liturgy be accessible etc.
Well, the reality is that for numerous reasons, there was very little access to the word prior to the reformation, and in most places the even the liturgy was largely inaccessible because it was in an incomprehensible language. The ringing of the alter bell at the epiclesis is an example of this. This practice originated because the common people couldn't follow the liturgy so they needed a sign to tell them when the consecration was occuring. This was partly due to the fact that in many places the people had essentially begun to hold their own mini services during the mass because they couldn't understand anything that was going on in the main service and the bell was a signal to pay attention because the (most) important part was happening.
So it is true that both word and liturgy were largely inaccessible.. if that were not the case the reformation might never have occured. (pure speculation I realize)
On the other side of the coin, protestant frequently alledge that the Catholics were terrible persecutors of the poor down trodden protestants who wanted nothing more than to worship in peace.. and that the Catholic Church absolutely refused to translate the bible into vernacular languages.
The reality is that the protestants were usually just as quick to persecute and oppress Catholics (and other protestants) and there were actually vernacular language translations of scripture prior to the reformation done by the Catholic Church. In fact there were local language translations of scripture (though usually not the entire bible due to cost and ability) going back to the 4th century AD. In the middle ages when translations were done, it was usually having the language of the common people written in between the lines of the latin bible so that it could be read to the common people.
The reality is that even until well after the reformation the vast majority of the common people were illiterate and couldn't have read the bible even if it was in their own language. Prior to the reformation and the printing press, even many scholars never had or rarely even saw a complete bible in Latin because the production of such a vast work was so extremely expensive, and difficult.
Some Churches had the bible (or as much as they posessed anyway) chained to a podium in the Church with a reader on duty so that the people could come in and hear the word being read at almost any time of the day.
The real issue with Tyndale in particular was not that he translated the bible.. it was that he injected his own anti-catholic doctrinal positions into his translation. Which is not to say he was deliberately inacurate, but rather he chose viable translations which happened to suite his views.
For example, he translated Presbyter as "elder" and Episcopos as "overseer" which are valid, literal translations, but were pointedly used against the Church higherarchy and the Catholic practice of translating the words according to their transliterated titles (priest and bishop), rather than the literal meaning. So the translation is not inaccurate technically.
This, one difference alone had a huge effect on ecclesiology and Church leadership. Tyndale was pushing an egalitarian, anti-clergy model and he was largely successful as we look at the protestant Church today.
While many protestants today would claim Tyndale's version is more accurate, what he did in effect was exchange a transliteration for a translation in an attempt to destroy the use of a title.
For example, the title Duke, in english comes from the Latin Dux, which means generically 'leader'.. so this would be like insisting that you must refer to Duke's as simply "leader".
Another example would be to take the word Apostle. What the word Apostle actually means is "one who is sent"... So we could insist that when the bible says "Apostle" it is actually inaccurate and it should say simply "one who is sent".
The Church, from as far back as we have writings used the words presbyter and episcopos, not as descriptions, but as titles. A presbyter was not called a presbtyer (elder) because he was old.. he was called that because he held a position of guidance and respect within the community. There is actually no age requirement for the office of Presbyter "elder".
Many modern protestant church's ecclesiology and leadership, is built on the belief that those words are descriptions, not titles.. in other words they describes roles, not offices. The reason for this is because offices by definition carry authority, but if someone is just playing the role it doesn't imply authority.
Tyndale essentially created that doctrine with his translation.
Another example is Tyndale using the world "congregation" instead of "Church". and repentance instead of penance.
In the case of repentance and penance, the words essentially mean the same thing, they are both derivatives of the word penitent, or to feel sorry or to feel regret. Tyndale was merely playing off a difference in conotation, that penance in practice conotated outward action to demonstrate one's remorse, while repentance didn't necessarily conotate outward action.
In the case of Church vs. Congregation again the issue was largely an attack on the idea of Church authority. The word Church comes from the greek Kirke meaning "Of the Lord" it was used to refer to the assembly of God's people because they were the people "of the Lord". However, the word Church had an established meaning referring to a visible body with a heirarchy and authority etc. By using the word congregation instead, Tyndale was able to lay a foundation for the Church to be defined as a loose association of individuals.. a group of individuals who come together.. not a corperate entity bound together, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Also, Tyndale was attacked and even declared a heretic and his arrest ordered by the Catholic Church. However, his arrest and execution was actually affected by Henry VIII, primarily because he had written public tracts opposing the King's divorce and calling the King on the carpet for his behavior.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
On the issue of splintering Churches.. the numbers in the study being talked about were artificially inflated. For example, there are numerous branches of Catholicism.. however, they are not actually in disunity, they are just different rites of the same Church. For example, there is Latin Rite, Melkite Rite, Maronic Rite, Chaldean etc etc.. there are probably dozens of rites... but they are all Catholic Churches in communion with Rome and all recognize the authority of Rome.
In the eastern Church there are several different national churches, greek, antiochian, russian, lithuanian etc etc etc.. again, they are all in communion. There is no actual schizm between them.
When you come to Anglicanism, there have been several groups that have splintered off from Anglicanism and are no longer in fellowship with the Anglican Church.. the methodists, the weslyans could be counted, the puritans who started the congregationalist Churches in america etc. Now in modern times Anglicanism has experienced another split and may fragment further in the next few years over the influx of liberalism.
When you look at Lutheranism.. how many Lutheran synods are there.. and how many of them actually are "in fellowship" with each other? In north america alone there are almost 40 different Lutheran Synods.. and they are not just different rites of a Church that are all one Church, they are frequently Churches that have splintered from each other and don't fellowship together.
How about baptists? how many different types of baptists are there? Again, most of the time these groups are not just different styles within the same Church, they are churches who split because of disagreement and have either impaired or no fellowship.
How about reformed.. again the splintering is fairly rediculous.. even within very specific groups like "dutch reformed" there are splinters across which the differing sides would barely speak to one another, let alone worship together.
In the historic Church there were two major schizms.. one in 451 after the council of Chalcedon when the coptic Churches split off from the rest of the Church, and then in 1054 when the Eastern and Western Church split into Orthodox and Catholic.
Since the reformation I would venture to say that if the splits within the protestant Churches could be numbered they would easily number well into the hundreds, probably into the thousands.
I just remembered this Joke which I think sums up the topic of protestant division nicely and its funny because its true
In the eastern Church there are several different national churches, greek, antiochian, russian, lithuanian etc etc etc.. again, they are all in communion. There is no actual schizm between them.
When you come to Anglicanism, there have been several groups that have splintered off from Anglicanism and are no longer in fellowship with the Anglican Church.. the methodists, the weslyans could be counted, the puritans who started the congregationalist Churches in america etc. Now in modern times Anglicanism has experienced another split and may fragment further in the next few years over the influx of liberalism.
When you look at Lutheranism.. how many Lutheran synods are there.. and how many of them actually are "in fellowship" with each other? In north america alone there are almost 40 different Lutheran Synods.. and they are not just different rites of a Church that are all one Church, they are frequently Churches that have splintered from each other and don't fellowship together.
How about baptists? how many different types of baptists are there? Again, most of the time these groups are not just different styles within the same Church, they are churches who split because of disagreement and have either impaired or no fellowship.
How about reformed.. again the splintering is fairly rediculous.. even within very specific groups like "dutch reformed" there are splinters across which the differing sides would barely speak to one another, let alone worship together.
In the historic Church there were two major schizms.. one in 451 after the council of Chalcedon when the coptic Churches split off from the rest of the Church, and then in 1054 when the Eastern and Western Church split into Orthodox and Catholic.
Since the reformation I would venture to say that if the splits within the protestant Churches could be numbered they would easily number well into the hundreds, probably into the thousands.
I just remembered this Joke which I think sums up the topic of protestant division nicely and its funny because its true
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
"Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
"Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
Upvote
0
I'm not catholic and i'm not protestant the term protestant goes back to the reformation when people like Calvin protested against the RCC so those that align themselves to the doctrine of those first protestants would be protestants themselves.
the term protestant goes back to the reformation when people like Calvin protested against the RCC so those that align themselves to the doctrine of those first protestants would be protestants themselves.
Upvote
0
Little Tigress, my Dad says the same thing, he only calls the denominations that split off the Catholic Church durring the Reformation as Protestant, since the Methodist church broke off of the Anglican church he calls them "protestant-protestants" because they are protesting the Protestants, he can be kinda silly at times. He also has fibromyalgia so that little ribbon in your sig means a lot to me, good to see people bringing attention to such a painful illness
Upvote
0
Izdaari Eristikon
Well-Known Member
- Mar 12, 2007
- 6,174
- 448
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Episcopalian
- Marital Status
- Married
Aye, Pentecostalism arose out of the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition, which in turn has its roots in Anglicanism. Add in that I'm huge fan of C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, and that I enjoy an occasional liturgy, and I'm not too far off from being a charismatic Anglican.
That's how I feel about it too. My AG church is in the Protestant tradition, so ok, I guess I'm a Protestant. But still I have great respect for the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and I agree with them on more theology than is normal for a Protestant.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 39,210
- 6,730
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Hentenza, nice link to a website set up for proselitism
Sorry Rhamiel.
The link was not intended for that. I did a quick search and that page was part of the results. The page had the ingredients that I was looking for about the amount of denominations. It wasn't my intention to proselytize. I am a believer that the HS leads Christians to where God wants them so proselytism (for me) is reserved for the unbeliever.Again, my apologies.
Upvote
0
Oh man, I was just giving you a hard time, no need to apologize, believe me, I have seen way worse stuff then that.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
Most of the time the term evangelical refers to protestants.
However, the concept of evangelical belief is not inherently protestant. A Catholic can be evangelical.
Evangelical is really a matter of emphasis.
It generally is halmarked by
emphasizing the inerrancy of scripture
emphasizing the need for personal conversion and personal faith
emphasizing the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for salvation
emphasizing evangelistic outreach
Upvote
0
Izdaari Eristikon
Well-Known Member
- Mar 12, 2007
- 6,174
- 448
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Episcopalian
- Marital Status
- Married
Aye, and I fit that definition of evangelical, and am a member of a Protestant denomination. But still the lines seems a little blurry. As Simon points out, Catholics can be evangelical. And I have enough sympathy for RC, EO and OO theology and practice as to not be all that far over the Protestant line. Maybe that's my Anglican side showing?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
