MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[Ginger2]

Dear Ginger2,

Hello again. My actual screen name is “Portrait”, Pax, latin for peace, is how I now sign myself off, since it is so important that even in the lively interchange of argument there are no breeches of Christian charity.

I realized that after I posted…

May I just respond to your remarks regarding the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1, 6-7, 12-15, 28)?, but I am sure that Tom will want to reply to you also.

Many Protestants make the assertion that since St. James commands the Council to listen to his words, …It is a word that, in itself does not connote authority.

I wasn’t suggesting that one word indicated special authority.

Many have tried to use this passage to invalidate St. Peter’s primacy by drawing attention to St. James as having the “final word”, but this interpretation is sadly misguided. True, St. James is the Bishop of the city, yet not only does St. Peter speak first - he actually settles the question;

Peter was not the first to speak, the debate was well in progress when he spoke up. Peter made no final decision. Paul and Barnabas spoke afterward. Why would there need to be more discussion on the signs and wonders within the gentile community if the issue was settled at that point?

James called the attention of the assembly to himself before speaking. He first quoted Scriptures. Why, because the Scriptures held ultimate and absolute authority! pharisidic Jews could not argue against Scriptures, but they could against human opinion!

Finally, James said, v19
It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, this is a clear statement that James had final say!!!..

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Andrew60,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this list a real blessing and a source of genuine inspiration and wisdom.

It is the same way here in Houston. For a less energetic activity - just look in the Yellow Pages!

While I really can not ‘hang my hat’ on any particular number, and the sources that have been used do have some apparent errors - just looking around at these independent churches, their numbers alone must have a number in the thousand.

God bless

Here in San Antonio all you have to do is walk down a couple of streets and see more than ten different non denominational churchs they are like bars. I can see the figure easily

 

[Ginger2]

Hi, Ginger2,

Acts 15 is clear that Peter made the decision becuse God had revealed His Will to Peter in Acts 10. James spoke next and endorsed the concept…

Two things are wrong with your statements:

1. James didn’t speak next. As I’ve already stated, Paul and Barnabas spoke afterward. Why would there need to be more discussion on the signs and wonders within the gentile community if the issue was settled at that point?
2. James didn’t speak next. James spoke last ending the discussion. James had the final say and he did not use supreme authority to do so. He used Scripture!

 

[Nicea325]

I realized that after I posted…

I wasn’t suggesting that one word indicated special authority.

Peter was not the first to speak, the debate was well in progress when he spoke up. Peter made no final decision. Paul and Barnabas spoke afterward. Why would there need to be more discussion on the signs and wonders within the gentile community if the issue was settled at that point?

James called the attention of the assembly to himself before speaking. He first quoted Scriptures. Why, because the Scriptures held ultimate and absolute authority! pharisidic Jews could not argue against Scriptures, but they could against human opinion!

Finally, James said, v19
It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, this is a clear statement that James had final say!!!..

He first quoted Scriptures. Why, because the Scriptures held ultimate and absolute authority!

Where does the Bible make such a claim of ABSOLUTE and ULTIMATE authority? Chapter and verse…please

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

There you go again… You are technically right … but, miss the point.! Let me explain and I will provide the text from Acts 15…

Peter was not the first to speak, the debate was well in progress when he spoke up. Peter made no final decision. Paul and Barnabas spoke afterward. Why would there need to be more discussion on the signs and wonders within the gentile community if the issue was settled at that point?

1
Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.”

You see Portrait, Ginger2 was right! Peter was not the first to speak - there was this group that were actually discussing the topic before Peter spoke. While this may have been a literary style to introduce the reader to what was coming next, I will have to agree with Ginger2 on the speaking order! Even though this discussion took place outside of the actual Council, the assumption would be that these guys were still talking about the topic! But, now, the plot thickens…

2
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
3
They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
4
When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.
5
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”

And here we have a specific group who gets up in the Council and speaks before Peter. Ginger2, it looks like you were right again. Now, I know they did not have ‘Roberts Rules of Order’ back in 51AD - but, it certainly sounds like the Pharisee is making a motion to be discussed (no doubt he got a ‘second’ to his motion) Let’s see what happens…

6
The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

So, in modern terms … a motion was made and seconded and there was a debate - and here is where we make this radical shift from a parlamentary type meeting to one where God is leading the Council through His Chosen Leader" Peter. It is Peter who NOW speaks, ending further debate by making the decision. And, this is the point you may want to foucus ont, Ginger2: Peter gives an explanation citing God as the source.

8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."

So, let’s make sure we got this straight: God has shown Peter that Gentiles are to be admitted without having to be circumcised. Peter publically chides them for not being open to God’s Spirit as is being made known. Peter does not pull any punches - and tells them that we could not follow the Law of Moses, either! (You see, it just was not circumcision… there were all of these Sabbath laws that someone had to keep!

12
The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

Just in case anyone missed this - the Holy Spirit did not just work through Peter (Acts 10) in freeing the Gentiles from the Law of Moses - here are two more witnesses. This matter had been resolved by Peter and here we have Paul and Barnabas putting some icing on the cake…

13
After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.
14
Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.

Another way to look at this is James is saying, “Hey! I agree, too!” But, the deed is done and James is just bringing up the rear.

God bless

 

[PJM]

=Nicea325;7098641]Tell me something new, I have heard your anti-Catholic sentiments a billion times. I am very aware of the Orthodox churches and other ancient liturgical churches. Now name the others before the 16th century and do they exist today?

Quote:
in fact…all heresy first sprang from the Catholic Church.

**Adding my comment: PJM…

I’d give a c+ on this point. The REAL question seems to WHY**?

And the answer is there were NO OTHER Churches to desent from.

Ah no! Heresies spring from MEN who have a chip on their shoulders,try researching it a bit more

Aahhhh…was the majority of society still pagan in 325 A.D.? 381?

 

[PRmerger]

Here in San Antonio all you have to do is walk down a couple of streets and see more than ten different non denominational churchs they are like bars. I can see the figure easily

That’s what I’m sayin’!!

In fact, I think the figure of 40,000 is being too kind. Anecdotal evidence (and logic!) (and math!) tells us that the number is much, much higher.

However, all we have is this flawed study from which we can glean some truth.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

The encyclopedia lists them all as Roman Catholic denominations. It lists over 700 Eastern Orthodox denominations as well, and I’m sure the Eastern Orthodox would disagree with that (as would most rational Roman Catholics).

You say there’s only one…that’s my point. You’d accept one number but reject another, and both from the same source.

So you are suggesting that all rational Catholics don’t actually agree with the Creed they profess weekly.

Rational catholics believe that the holy Roman catholic and Apostolic Church is the One True Church. In a real sense the number One is the only number relevant in counting Churches. Indeed Church cannot esist in the plural.

 

[Vixit]

Dear roveau,

Cordial greetings.

That figure of 40, 000 denominations is almost next to certain, for as of 1981 the *World *Christian Encyclopaedia (Oxford University Press) listed no fewer than 20,800 differrent Protestant denominations. Thus it would seem perfectly feasible for that figure to have doubled in the intervening years between then and now. Moreover, even the distinguished Evangelical Anglican theologian, John R.W. Stott, has said that evangelicalism has a pathological tendency to divide and in America creating new denominations is almost a national pastime.

Catholic apologists are therefore surely correct in employing this argument to point out the multiparous nature of Protestantism and its very divisive tendencies. Furthemore, if we really do deplore the unhappy divisions of Christendom, then we will seek to underscore the consequences of repudiating the Roman obedience - increasing fragmentation being a primary one.

Our Lord prayed passionately that all His disciples would be one (St. Jn. 17: 21) and He said that the Church was to be one Flock with one Shepherd (St. Jn. 10: 16). It seems quite incontrovertible that the multiplicity of denominations within Protestant religion have their roots in the Reformation when a single, historic and unified Church authority was abandoned. Each new division produces a smaller and, quite often, more extreme splinter group. These interminable divisions are unfortunate per se, but what is also quite tragic is that each new extreme group is one step further from the “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” established by Christ upon the “rock”, even Blessed St. Peter.

Whilst the Catholic Church values diversity, the Catholic model is not a myriad, whatever the exact figure, of different denominations existing as a law unto themselves. Rather the diversity of emphasis, culture and theological approach exist within the organic unity of the Catholic Church. We have unity, but not uniformity; sectarian religion expects uniformity and only has internal unity because it has split from everybody else.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I grew up in a church that called itself Baptist, and distinctly remember when a group of parishioners, who always had some problem with the preacher ( I was too young to know exactly what, so I can’t say), ended up leaving and forming their own church, choosing one of their number to be pastor. Like half the church left. That’s what Protestants do. It’s in their name and nature to protest. Luther set quite a precedent.

 

[1holycatholic]

I grew up in a church that called itself Baptist, and distinctly remember when a group of parishioners, who always had some problem with the preacher ( I was too young to know exactly what, so I can’t say), ended up leaving and forming their own church, choosing one of their number to be pastor. Like half the church left. That’s what Protestants do. It’s in their name and nature to protest. Luther set quite a precedent.

I believe they call that “church planting” or “church growth.” Dissent is celebrated in Protestantism: “Hooray! Where there was once one “church” there are now two!” :doh2:

 

[inkaneer]

Dear roveau,

Cordial greetings.

That figure of 40, 000 denominations is almost next to certain, for as of 1981 the *World *Christian Encyclopaedia (Oxford University Press) listed no fewer than 20,800 differrent Protestant denominations. Thus it would seem perfectly feasible for that figure to have doubled in the intervening years between then and now. Moreover, even the distinguished Evangelical Anglican theologian, John R.W. Stott, has said that evangelicalism has a pathological tendency to divide and in America creating new denominations is almost a national pastime.

I saw the 40,0000 denominations figure about a year ago on the website for Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, a very prominent protestant ministerial training intstitution. They listed it as a global estimate. They have since redone their website and the number is no longer mentioned. Someone told me they got the figure from the World Council of Churches but I have not been able to confirm that. I also heard that the Oxford University School of Divinity listed over 32,000 denominations in 2001 with an average of 274 new denominations being formed each week. I cannot vouche for these numbers and I have no way of knowing what criteria was used in determining these numbers but I think it is all inclusive and a large bulk of the number consists of small autonomous assemblies not affilated with a larger organization.

 

[Ginger2]

I grew up in a church that called itself Baptist, and distinctly remember when a group of parishioners, who always had some problem with the preacher ( I was too young to know exactly what, so I can’t say), ended up leaving and forming their own church, choosing one of their number to be pastor. Like half the church left. That’s what Protestants do. It’s in their name and nature to protest. Luther set quite a precedent.

…and that could never happen in the RC as it is led by the Holy Spirit.

There are two reasons people leave leave a church whether Catholic or Protestant:

1. they don’t like hearing the truth
2. they cannot tolerate the lie

I attended a Methodist Church for a period of time. Every conference deal with the issue of normalizing homosexuality.
So, I became a delagate, a voice to defended remaining true to God’s Word.
However, we (members of the congregation) discussed the issue and what to do should the church stray from the Word. If that happened, a good deal of us would have left…**some to attend other churches and some talked about forming their own.**All the band equipment belonged to my husband and I and we never donated it, as once donated to the church it became property of the confeence and I said If they stray the equipment belongs to God, not those who follow their own desires.

Now the point I would like to stress, is that none of those who talked about leaving, would have done so because he/she disliked a biblical principle. They all would have left because the church was falling into apostasy.

If you attended a parish where the priest began speaking things you knew were heretical, would you not report this? If the investigation drug on for several months and there was no way to tell when it would be resolved, Would you continue going each week listening to the false teaching? or would you go to the RC in the next town until the Bishop resolved the issue?

Wouldn’t you be concerned about the validity of the sacriments offered by an heretic?

 

[Ginger2]

I believe they call that “church planting” or “church growth.”

Church planting is when the church sends out a group of volunteers along with an ordained pastor to build a church in an area that particular denomination doesn’t yet have a church.

These people are not starting a new religion, nor leaving their home church due to dissent - they are going out into the World to make new dicsiples of Christ.

They leave their homes and friends - many find new jobs to support themselves - to spread the Gospel of Christ with the help and approval of thei current church.

 

[PRmerger]

Church planting is when the church sends out a group of volunteers along with an ordained pastor to build a church in an area that particular denomination doesn’t yet have a church.

These people are not starting a new religion, nor leaving their home church due to dissent - they are going out into the World to make new dicsiples of Christ.

They leave their homes and friends - many find new jobs to support themselves - to spread the Gospel of Christ with the help and approval of thei current church.

I believe 1holycatholic was speaking tongue-in-cheek, Ginger.

The point made was the fruit of this Protestant paradigm (the Bible is my sole rule of faith) is: when I know my preacher is wrong (who is, of course, fallible and will make an error at some point), I must leave and start the right church with the right interpretations.

Except that this has led to 9.000, 40,000, millions (take your pick of the number–they’re all obscene!) denominations.

 

[Ginger2]

…I also heard that the Oxford University School of Divinity listed over 32,000 denominations in 2001 with an average of 274 new denominations being formed each week. I cannot vouche for these numbers and I have no way of knowing what criteria was used in determining these numbers but I think it is all inclusive and a large bulk of the number consists of small autonomous assemblies not affilated with a larger organization.

Well, now the numbers are becoming more realistic! Do the math and discover there are well over 160,000 protestant denominations. All unaffiliated and totally separte from any other denomination.

And the OP had a hard time believing there were 40,000!

 

[PRmerger]

Well, now the numbers are becoming more realistic! Do the math and discover there are well over 160,000 protestant denominations. All unaffiliated and totally separte from any other denomination.

And the OP had a hard time believing there were 40,000!

And, mathematically, logically, anecdotally, this is possible.

 

[Ginger2]

And, mathematically, logically, anecdotally, this is possible.

It is possible when you count each building or rite separately even tho they are part of a larger denomination - which is what Barret did in many cases AND WHY HE SAYS THERE ARE NUMEROUS CATHOLIC DENOMINATIONS!

Many Protestant churches (individual parishes) take on specific names for their particular parish, but they are not a separate denomination of their own - they belong the a greated denomination.

Also, the differences between many churches are miniscule like those between the different rites of the Catholic church and they and, as the RC would say, in communion with each other.

So following the reasoning of the RC concerning only one Church in communion with the others, there are very few Protestant denominations.

 

[PRmerger]

Many Protestant churches (individual parishes) take on specific names for their particular parish, but they are not a separate denomination of their own - they belong the a greated denomination.

Perhaps to some of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal churches this applies.

However, there are scads and scads of independent churches that answer to no one except he who started it. (And notice I did not capitalize “he”.)

 

[Riccardo]

Hi, Ric,

So, you have babies leaving the hospital without a name, but there is the understanding that they will be registered (named?) shortly? The idea of there potntially being a baby out there and nameless is a bit strange to my way of thinking., Really. I can’t imagine that happening too often. Can you?

I think the Pope did a good thing by visiting the UK, opening the Catholic Church to CoE members who want to join and this special recognition for Blessed John Newman.

God bless

Tom, i have found out the answer to my own question, so i thought i would share it, and and see how that now applies to the question in hand;

Genesis 17

9 God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.
13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Now he deals with a female next

15 Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
16 “And I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”

Females were not counted as males either in numbers or status in the covenant community.

When they are listed, if they are, it is to call attention to a particular time, situation in relation to another, or some such. In the case of Sarah she was blessed because of her association and marriage to Abraham. However, Abraham was blessed by being in covenant, so was his wife — as long as she remaimed his wife and was faithful to him and to God in that capacity.

The Law of Exclusion goes into effect.

We are told specifically what the Jews were supposed to do in the case of “males”. God accepted “females” (vs 15f above) by way of association with a family, an individual Jew accepted by God or family nationality. By the law of exclusion, all who did not fit that pattern were excluded and considered heathens.

 

[Ginger2]

Perhaps to some of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal churches this applies.

However, there are scads and scads of independent churches that answer to no one except he who started it. (And notice I did not capitalize “he”.)

Yes!!! but they are nor necessarily Protestant. Jonestown could have been counted as an independent church, but it was merely a cult with some crazy guy leading people astray. This sort of thing happened even before Jesus birth. It is misleading, to say the least, to classify them under the term “protestant” in an attempt to use this information as a way to disparage non-catholic Christians. Then there is Fred Phelps of the Westboro “Baptist” church, which is still operating. He’s a crazy and his congregation is made up uf family members. It’s not a real church or denomination.

You can’t blame protestanism for the inevitable nut case who thinks he’s a prophet or the christ. This sort of thing has always been around. How do you think pagan societies formed when the World started out with only Adam and Eve? The Only God known to man was the One and Only YHWH.

In addition to that, every church has its heretics pretending to be righteous so they can work their way into positions of power and destroy from within. If they manage to deceive some and pull them out of the church and into a cult, that is not a situation limited to Protestants. It happens in the Rc, too (ie Caritas of Burmingham)

But the real issue of this thread is whether or not a severely flawed source should be used to make one’s point. I say “no”. It discredits the user. To me it makes Catholics look desperate to justify themselves as tho you don’t think solid facts is enough to prove you’re right, you need to make up stories.

That is not an accusation of what you are or are not doing. It is merely a statement of how it comes off to those who are not already convicted in the RC.

For me, every time a Catholic spouts off something untrue to prove his point, I am mor convinced he is desperately trying to prove something to me that he isn’t really all that certain about himself, otherwise, the facts would be enough and there would be no need for “hyperbole” and exaggerations and sometimes even outright fairytales.

Have a great weekend all.