MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

You are sooooooooooo right - whether you meant to be or not is immaterial: that could not happen in the Catholic Church because once they stop following the teachings of the Catholic Church … they are no longer Catholic. Unlike the post identifying that 1/2 of that particular Baptist congregation was annoyed with the current preacher and split and formed one they now agree with.

What is done - a Catholic who disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, and you can use Luther as the stellar examplar of this behavior - leaves the Church. He did not call the Group “1st Catholic Church” or “2nd Catholic Church” or “Northside Catholic Church” or anything else to imply that he was with the Catholic Church he had just left. Actually, I do not think he called his group of apostates anything - it was only later called Lutheran. And, that was to distinguish it from the the other splinter groups.

…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?

Actually, you bring up an excellent point - and, in answer to your question, yes, I would go to another Catholic Church after having reported my concernes to the higher authority.

By the way, you did good by trying to keep your group from blowing with the political and social winds that have beset our world through the mistaken idea that homosexuality is ‘OK’. This evil practice has apparently corrupted everything it has touched upon.

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

Actually, No, I would not. The priest may be in the state of mortal sin - but, he still takes the place of Christ, so the Mass he offers is valid, the Sacraments he administers are valid. God’s grace can flow to His People through the failures of men.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2

Are you being serious about there being 160,000 Protestant denominations? If so, what are you using for a reference?

God bless

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!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

Hold on a minute - you have drawn an invalid conclusion here… ! Let me explain:

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.

For many, Protestant groups, there is no central authority - all engage in Sola Scriptura so each individual can declare whatever they want and ultimately, there is no list of ‘essential’ that has been ratified by the numerous denominations. Dotrine is all over the place because any one church does not have to subscribe to what their sister chruches subscribe to! And, this is just with the so called ‘name brand’ churches’ (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.)

Now we have gone from “160,000 to very few”… Which is it, Ginger2?

God bless

 

[elvisman]

Tom, to reply to these;
…and by this you mean, there is the intention to Baptize, water is used and the Trinitarian formula is said (?)
YES

at the age when wants to take that responsibility on themselves, they get confirmed,

…here in the US it is customary to demonstrate that one has a basic knowledge of the Catholic Faith prior to confirmation. Is this what you mean?
YES

Why dont we hear of confirmation in the NT?
This, again is for my understanding.

I was gald to see such unity with the Pope and the CoE. He never mentioned two becoming one though, not on his visit.

God bless you
Ric

Hey Ric -
****First of all – we DO **read about Confirmation in the bible. In Acts 8:14-17, we read that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip, the Apostles *“sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; *then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit”.

---

In Acts 19:1-6, we read, *"While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. *
***He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” ***
***He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” ***
Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” ***
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ***
And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.”

As for the word, “Confirmation” - the word may not appear but the sacrament is definitely there.

Can you answer me this?**
Why don’t we ever hear of “altar calls” in the Bible.
Why don’t we ever hear of “the sinner’s prayer” in the Bible.
Why don’t we ever hear of “Bible” in the Bible.
Why don’t we ever hear of “Trinity” in the Bible.

 

[Todd520]

Hey Ric -
****First of all – we DO ****read about Confirmation in the bible. In Acts 8:14-17, we read that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip, the Apostles *“sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; *then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit”.

---

In Acts 19:1-6, we read, *"While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. *
***He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” ***
***He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” ***
Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” ***
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ***
And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.”

IMHO - Protestant & LDS baptism equates to Catholic Confirmation

Whether you call it baptism or confirmation, there is a repenting of sins and arrival of the Holy Spirit

 

[elvisman]

IMHO - Protestant & LDS baptism equates to Catholic Confirmation

Whether you call it baptism or confirmation, there is a repenting of sins and arrival of the Holy Spirit

**No offense, Todd - but your first erroneous words were, “IMHO.”

Nowhere inn the Old Testament or the New do I read that Todd is the pillar and foundation of truth. I don’t even read that about Elvisman.
BUT - 1 Tim. 3:15 tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Secondly - the LDS baptize the dead - so your point about repentance is moot.

Thirdly - LDS Baptism is not Trinitarian because you reject the Trinity. The words of LDS baptism are similar because they invoke the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but because they reject the Triune Godhead, there is no infusing of the Holy Spirit.

To make the blanket statement about “Protestant” Baptism is yet another fallacy. Most Protestant denominations don’t teach Baptismal Regeneration. Most say that it is merely an outward act of their faith.

Lastly - The denial of infant Baptism goes against the Scriptures.
**When St. Peter baptized Cornelius the Centurion, he baptized his entire household including children and servants (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14). We see the same thing in Acts 16:23-24 with the household of the Philippian jailer and 1 Cor. 1:16 with Stephanas’ household. The plain fact is that households include children of all ages, *including *infants. **

The Early Church Fathers were UNANIMOUS in their beliefs on infant Baptism.

 

[Todd520]

To avoid the rath of Elvis

IMHO - -]Protestant &/-] LDS baptism equates to Catholic Confirmation

Whether you call it baptism or confirmation, there is a repenting of sins and arrival of the Holy Spirit

 

[elvisman]

To avoid the rath of Elvis

**Like I said before, Todd - LDS Baptism is *not *valid because of the rejection of the Holy Trinity. **
There is no arrival of the Holy Spirit when he is rejected - and he is rejected when he is not considered part of the Triune Godhead.

**In short - unless you invite ALL of God - he doesn’t show up.
**

 

[inkaneer]

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.

The point that you miss is that all of this is made possible by sola scriptura. That is the one thing that all these assemblies, whether you call them churches, denominations, cults, sects, assemblies, storefronts or whatever, owe their existence to. Jonestown would never have occurred if it were not for sola scriptura. And yes I can blame sola scriptura for the inevitable nut case like Jim Jones or Heavensgate.

And yes we in the Catholic Church have had our share of heretics like Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin, Zwinglii and a bunch of others. BUT …the difference between the Catholic Church and protestants is the Catholic Church has the authority to declare someone a heretic. And we do. Protestants do not. No protestant church claims any authority except that of scripture [sola scriptura]. So protestants like to say they are “big tent” which just means that while one may not agree with another’s interpretation on doctrine they can’t denounce it either. So they can still be brothers under this big tent of sola scriptura even though their doctrines [like Baptism] contradict one another. All I can say is the early church would be absolutely horrified at that thought and justifiably so.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Todd520,

Heads up: That was a truly profoundly inadequate post!

You received an excellent, scripture based, logically presented, refutation of your statement and you respond this insulting manner?

Elivisman is totally capable of responding to this post of yours - but, as a reader of posts, yours was a profound disappointment. Now, cutting to the chase, why not respond to Elvisman’s statements in an intelligent manner and defend your position - or, just simply admit that your statement was wrong?

God bless

To avoid the rath of Elvis

 

[zdon011]

Hi, Todd520,

…You received an excellent, scripture based, logically presented, refutation of your statement and you respond this insulting manner?

You shouldn’t be surprised, tqualey

This isn’t the first thread where Todd520 has ignored substantive arguments by Elvisman (or anyone, for that matter):nope:

You can lead a camel to water…

 

[zdon011]

As a Catholic I am bemused by the number of times I see this or even much higher figures than 40,000 denominations thrown in to bolster an argument about why sola scriptura is wrong. I think it unfair in debate if it can’t be substantiated.

I want to see a list of these 40,000 denominations. I personally know of perhaps 20 or 30.

Well, on a purely practical level, roveau, you’d have to have a dedicated cadre of researchers with the resources of the gov’t of a small country, to compile such a list. And were the info’ to be presented in a meaningful way, it would fill several phonebooks (or the kind of website that makes your computer crash).

40,000? There’s probably one being founded right now.

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Todd520,

Heads up: That was a truly profoundly inadequate post!

You received an excellent, scripture based, logically presented, refutation of your statement and you respond this insulting manner?

Elivisman is totally capable of responding to this post of yours - but, as a reader of posts, yours was a profound disappointment. Now, cutting to the chase, why not respond to Elvisman’s statements in an intelligent manner and defend your position - or, just simply admit that your statement was wrong?

God bless

Did you miss this truly insulting post from Elvis?

[SIGN]No offense, Todd - but your first erroneous words were, “IMHO.”

Nowhere inn the Old Testament or the New do I read that Todd is the pillar and foundation of truth. I don’t even read that about Elvisman.[/SIGN]

Speaking of refuting: the idea that 5 families in the NT out of the thousands of adults baptized are a proof infants were baptized has been logically shown to be no real proof at all.

As for the ECF’s, the earliest (writers of the NT) speak over and over and over again of repentance first, then baptism. Infants can’t repent. If you tell me they don’t need to repent, I’ll say then they don’t need to be baptized. If you tell me they have a sin nature so they need baptism, I’ll remind you that Jesus told us not to refuse children from His presence. That tells me that Jesus does NOT require infants to be baptized to be taken into His wonderful presence. It, therefore, most likely is a man made tradition, a well meaning tradition I’m sure.

But, isn’t this off topic?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

No, I really do not think it is off topic at all.

You see, such a presentation lays a perfect foundation for why there are an abundance of Protestant denominations. Let me show you what I mean…

Did you miss this truly insulting post from Elvis?

[SIGN]No offense, Todd - but your first erroneous words were, “IMHO.”

Nowhere inn the Old Testament or the New do I read that Todd is the pillar and foundation of truth. I don’t even read that about Elvisman.[/SIGN]

Speaking of refuting: the idea that 5 families in the NT out of the thousands of adults baptized are a proof infants were baptized has been logically shown to be no real proof at all.

And, just where has this been shown?

Seriously, just think about that statement for a moment. Five events prove nothing, but no events prove something? If your point is that infants are incapable of repenting - or, even of what we commonly call rational thought - then the issue is: there really are two sets of rules! One for those who are mentally incapable of repenting and the other rule for everyone else.

You know, Christ statement to, "Let the little children come to me… " in Matt 19 is not an off-hand comment - but, one preceeded by a rebuke to the Apostles for having hindered the efforts of these little children and the parents who may be had babes in arms. Now, a rebuke from Christ is surely something we all should take seriously. To continue to hindering little children from coming to Him through a tradition of men and more to the point through a personal interpretation of Scripture is foolishness.

As for the ECF’s, the earliest (writers of the NT) speak over and over and over again of repentance first, then baptism. Infants can’t repent. If you tell me they don’t need to repent, I’ll say then they don’t need to be baptized. If you tell me they have a sin nature so they need baptism, I’ll remind you that Jesus told us not to refuse children from His presence. That tells me that Jesus does NOT require infants to be baptized to be taken into His wonderful presence. It, therefore, most likely is a man made tradition, a well meaning tradition I’m sure.

This is the ‘fruit’ of ‘cherry-picking’ material. Yes, the ECF spoke of repentance - and who was their audience? Those who were capable of repentance. They also endorsed, promoted, encouraged, directed and ordered that infants be baptized! So, how is this ‘conflict’ resolved? Well, since infants are incapable of repentance, but still have Original Sin on their soul - and Christ wants them to be brought to Him - bring these little chidren to Christ through baptism.

God bless

But, isn’t this off topic?

 

[JRRTFAN]

As a Catholic I am bemused by the number of times I see this or even much higher figures than 40,000 denominations thrown in to bolster an argument about why sola scriptura is wrong. I think it unfair in debate if it can’t be substantiated.

I want to see a list of these 40,000 denominations. I personally know of perhaps 20 or 30.

I don’t think there is a list. I think the 30 - 40,000 number derives from some source like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Religion or some such (that’s what I’ve heard but not seen).

The truth of the number, however, can be seen on any given Sunday. In our area (Central Florida) while driving to Church (7 miles) I pass no less than 9 established Churches of different denominations (did you know there is an Angolan Anglican Church? under a Bishop in Angola because the local Episcopal is a little edgy) and 3 school cafeteria churches with a banner out front of the school inviting the public in.

Now the fact of the matter is that each of those communities is a denomination. If they had the same credal belief they wouldn’t all exist, they would be parishes of a common faith community. And that’s where the count of 40,000 comes in. If I start a church tomorrow it’s based on my theology and therefore is my non-denominational denomination. If I pass 12 different ones in 7 miles, I have no doubt of the 40,000 on planet earth.

Think I’m crazy? Ask a 4 Square church member what he thinks of the laser light show over at the local non-denom mega church.

 

[elvisman]

Did you miss this truly insulting post from Elvis?

[sign]No offense, Todd - but your first erroneous words were, “IMHO.”

Nowhere inn the Old Testament or the New do I read that Todd is the pillar and foundation of truth. I don’t even read that about Elvisman.[/sign]

Speaking of refuting: the idea that 5 families in the NT out of the thousands of adults baptized are a proof infants were baptized has been logically shown to be no real proof at all.

As for the ECF’s, the earliest (writers of the NT) speak over and over and over again of repentance first, then baptism. Infants can’t repent. If you tell me they don’t need to repent, I’ll say then they don’t need to be baptized. If you tell me they have a sin nature so they need baptism, I’ll remind you that Jesus told us not to refuse children from His presence. That tells me that Jesus does NOT require infants to be baptized to be taken into His wonderful presence. It, therefore, most likely is a man made tradition, a well meaning tradition I’m sure.

But, isn’t this off topic?

WRONG Doki.
The problem with your posts - as I’ve stated before - is that you tend to shoot from the hip, impulsively, without doing and research whatsoever.

If you have ever read the Fathers - you would have known that infant baptism was a tradition from the very beginning. This was an APOSTOLIC Tradition through and through.
Here are a but few quotes that put your objections to rest:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save ALL through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men.** Therefore he passed through every age,* becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age* . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).**

---

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and IF they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).

---

Origen
The Church received FROM THE APOSTLES the tradition of giving baptism even to INFANTS***.***** The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 A.D. 248]).**

---

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn.** For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 A.D. 408]).**

 

[Dokimas]

**WRONG **Doki.
The problem with your posts - as I’ve stated before - is that you tend to shoot from the hip, impulsively, without doing and research whatsoever.

Seeing you believe that CC’s ST is 100% inspired you’d accept the following as definitive. Seeing that I don’t hold to this understanding, I need evidence from Scripture of infant baptism. Your argument from Scripture is lacking, IMO. Sorry.

If you have ever read the Fathers - you would have known that infant baptism was a tradition from the very beginning. This was an APOSTOLIC Tradition through and through.
Here are a but few quotes that put your objections to rest:

The earliest quote you sited is AD 189, 150+ years after Jesus. Sure is ‘early’ compared to us, but not real early seeing all who live when Jesus died were MOST likely dead for 80 yrs or so, which is more than a generation in and of itself.

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save ALL through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men.** Therefore he passed through every age,* becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age*** . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

---

Jesus surely is for infants. I’m having trouble finding from you earlies quote anything about infant baptism. If you think, from your quote of Ireanaeus, that this is about infant baptism, you have to read into this from your pre-supposition. You may be convinced, I’m not. I don’t see Jesus leaving an infant out of Heaven because their parents did not get them baptized. I see the mercy of God taking care of infants, young children and mentally challenged people without the ritual baptism. His love, mercy and grace is far bigger and more extensive than our rituals.

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and IF they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).

An interesting quote: do all baptisms in areas (like the USofA) where there’s plenty of water include water poured in a stream over the adult being baptized? If not, why isn’t this ECF’s teaching followed?

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

You see, such a presentation lays a perfect foundation for why there are an abundance of Protestant denominations. Let me show you what I mean…

Sorry to say I can’t see where you showed me evidence for your premise.

Seriously, just think about that statement for a moment. Five events prove nothing, but no events prove something? If your point is that infants are incapable of repenting - or, even of what we commonly call rational thought - then the issue is: there really are two sets of rules! One for those who are mentally incapable of repenting and the other rule for everyone else.

Correct. 5 events don’t prove infant baptism yet it is use as Biblical evidence. If the baptism of one infant were directly recorded in the NT, then it would prove that infants can be baptized with meaning.

The rule for those incapable of repenting is that the mercy, grace and love extends to these people without our ritual attempt to get them in right relations to our God.

You know, Christ statement to, "Let the little children come to me… " in Matt 19 is not an off-hand comment - but, one preceeded by a rebuke to the Apostles for having hindered the efforts of these little children and the parents who may be had babes in arms. Now, a rebuke from Christ is surely something we all should take seriously. To continue to hindering little children from coming to Him through a tradition of men and more to the point through a personal interpretation of Scripture is foolishness.

Of course Jesus’ comment, ‘Let the little children come to me …’ was NO off-hand comment. IMO, to say that His comment means infants should be baptized makes it off-hand. However, to acknowledge that Jesus takes special care of infants and children without our ritualistic intervention is to give real substance to His command.

I’m wondering how believing Jesus takes care of infants and young children so they don’t need to be baptized is a man made tradition. It’s no tradition but an understanding of the mercy, love and grace of God toward those who are helpless. Getting in God’s way or doing God’s job seems to result from man made traditions.

It sure is serious to get in God’s way of doing His work of redemption.

 

[Ginger2]

The point that you miss is that all of this is made possible by sola scriptura…

Let’s not go into SS. It’s just another myth Catholics like to spout off about…another example where truth is not enough, rather embellishments and misquotes are needed for the Catholic to defend his beliefs.

Luther did not teach Sola Scriptura. Luther is misquoted and falsely accused to discredit Protestants.

Here is the quote used by Catholics:
“Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or…by manifest reasoning,”

Furthermore, all cults are not formed out twisting Scriptures, yet all non Catholic churches and cults are lumped into protestanism - even those based on ideas spawn long before Luther and even some that existed before Christ.

 

[Ginger2]

tqualey, thank you for that very kind post.

Hi, Ginger2

Are you being serious about there being 160,000 Protestant denominations? If so, what are you using for a reference?

God bless

I got these numbers from a previous post (#389 by Inkaneer) where someone was telling in 2001 there were 33,000 and every week 274 were being added to that number. Then I said do the math. that is actually over 160,000 as of this year.

I think Catholics should go with “over 160,000” numbers

And of course sometime next year, according to this claim, the number will be over 175,000!!! In fact if you take into consideration the increased numbers of new churches to split from, the numbers should reach far more than 200,000 by next year.