MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

  • Thread starter Thread starter roveau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant, of course, 1700 years rather than 700. Perhaps 1525 is more precise. Sorry. Augustine c. 400 AD. Fosdick, c. 1925 AD.
 
elvisman said:
Those numbers (approx. 33,000) usually come from the World Christian Encyclopedia by David Barrett, George Kurian and Todd Johnson (Oxford Press).

By the way Todd M. Johnson, Ph.D. is a Research Fellow in the Study of Global Christianity and the Director, Center for the Study of Global Christianity
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary - a Protestant Seminary
Click to expand...
A question for clarification, I thought the 33k figure included all denominations of all religions (christian and NON-CHRISTIAN). The name World Christian Encylopedia is sort of a misnomer.
 
I have always thought of denominations as groups of churches working together with some kind of formal organization.
Isn’t the subjective nature of the defintion part of the difficulty?
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
tqualey:

If I understand correctly, you’re responding to the statement that the churches through Asia Minor were founded by the apostles by stating that the church was founded on Peter. You of course jump to Matthew 16:18, ignoring that the focus of that entire passage is on the faith of Peter and his declaration of Jesus as the Christ. It is likewise interesting that the evangelists Mark and Luke, recounting this moment in their respective gospels, leave out the supposedly all important declaration of Peter as the rock of the church.

Dear Byzatine_Wolf,

Cordial greetings dear friend.

With regards to the ‘Great Peterine Passage’, may I draw your attention to several important considerations to aid your understanding as to the full import of this key text.

First, at the place where the conversation to place, Caesarea Philippi, there was a huge natural rock formation on top of which the Romans had errected a temple to the pagan shepherd god Pan. Thus when our Lord said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will bulid my Church” (St. Matt. 16: 18), he was looking at this great rocky formation on top of which stood a temple to a shpherd god. The meaning of Christ is surely quite clear: Peter, whose surname means “rock”, was to be the great foundation for Christ’s Church - the Church of the real Good Shepherd.

Second, owing to the language details, some Protestants think that when Jesus called Peter “the rock”, He was using a term that really denoted “the pebble” or the “little stone”. Now this is untrue for liguistic reasons, for one must remember that our Lord spoke in Aramaic and there is no distinction between the words for “rock” and the name “Peter” in Aramaic. Moreover, it is also not true because of the visual aid that our Lord was using; the rock with the temple on top at Caesara Philippi was an enormous rocky outcrop - not a little pebble.

Third, in St. Matthew 16: 18, Jesus equates the Church with the Kingdom of heaven. In other words, the Church is like a kingdom and Jesus is the king. In England, where I live, the Prime Minister runs the country on behalf of the monarch and it was the same set up in the Old Testament. The Jewish king also had his “prime minister” and in Isaiah 22: 22 (incidently, this passage is cited in the marginal reference in the A.V. bible) one gets a fascinating glimpse into the royal court of Israel. In this passage, the prophet recognizes the prime minister of the king and describes his royal appointment. Isaiah addresses the former prime minister and says, “In that day I will call my servant (and prime minister) Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand;…I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Isaiah 22: 20-22).

This passage is pivitol in shedding light on St. Matt. 16: 19, in which our Lord says to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. The apostles would have been thoroughly aquainted with the O.T.; the Apostle Matthew’s (yes he was the author of the first Gospel, ascribed to him by an unbroken tradition) first-century Hebrew Christians would have been likewise. The apostles and early Christians understood the keys to symbolize royal authority; they knew that Jesus was refering to the Isaiah passage and understood clearly in a moment what we have to struggle to grasp: that Jesus was granting to St. Peter (and to him alone) thekeys of the kingdom - is actually appointing him “prime minister” of His kingdom. Thus as God gave Eliiakim in Isaiah the authority of the king - symbilzed by the keys - so St. Peter was specially appointed and chosen by Christ Himself to exercise Christ’s own authority on earth. Furthemore, it is manifestly evident that this office of prime minister was, by its very nature, a successive office. In other words, it was an office that was handed on from one prime minister to another in succession by handing over the symbol of the permanence of an office that was greater than any one holder of the office.

“Biased Roman Catholic speculation!” That viewpoint cannot be sustained since even no-Catholic scholars understand the backgoround to this pivitol verse. The unequivocal link between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16 is attested by the Anglican theologian R.T. France, who writes respecting St. Matt. 16, “Isaiah 22: 22 is generally regarded as the O.T. background to the metaphor of the keys here” (Matthew, Evangelist and Teacher, Zondervan, 1989, p. 274). J. Jeremias says, “The keys of the kingdom are not different from the keys of David…Handing over the keys does not imply appointing a porter…handing over the keys implies appointement of full authority” (Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 Vols, Eerdmans, 1968, vol 3, pp. 749-750).

When taken together with Isaiah 22, the “Great Peterine Text” affords rather compelling evidence that our Lord intended that St. Peter should bear His authority in a special and unique way. One can confidently assert that only Protestant reaction to Catholic Peterine and papal claims have brought about the denial that St. Peter himself is the “rock”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
 
I disagree that one can differ on so many issues and still maintain a real cohesive unity in Christ. When Jesus tells us the Holy Spirit will deliver all truth to us, is “all” just the basics or moral teachings, theology, and ecclesiology etc? The problem I see with Protestantism is that it isn’t just small things they differ about. The Atonement, how we are saved, sacraments, ecclesiology, Eucharist, sanctification, justification, Mary, saints, Bible, canon, you name it. Compare a Calvinist with a Lutheran or a Lutheran with a Presbyterian, etc. Look at these John MacCarther types compared to a John Stott. Look within Anglicanism itself how you can have such divergent thinkers as Anglo-Catholic who affirm a priesthood that is sacerdotal and catholic and guys like JI Packer and John Stott who claim there is no such thing as a priesthood but rather a presbyterate? They affirm the Westminister Confession as Calvinists in a Church that claims apostolic succession?

I think the “it’s just adiaphora” argument gets stretched pretty thin.
Roy5 said:
tqualey
Code: 
It's bedtime, but a couple quick responses.

Most liberal Protestants - and there are millions upon millions - have areas of theology where they don't feel the need to arrive at the 'truth'. One famous preacher once said that he could 'only believe in a God he could not understand'. I find that liberal Protestants are likely to say, we don't really know some ultimate truths because we are mere mortals, so let's be tolerant of different viewpoints. There actually is something called 'Christian agnosticism'. The idea is that we believe in God and earnestly seek to follow Christ, but we also feel that humankind simply cannot understand many ultimate truths. For example, afterlife. What is it like? Heaven? Or something we cannot profitably speculate about. God's ways are not always our ways, and we are limited by our finite brain. The notion of a heaven, hell and purgatory comes into question.

 (Protestants, by the way - speaking of tithing - and as you probably know - give at least double per capita what Catholics give.)

 When it comes to Christ's presence in the communion elements, most Protestants would likely say that Jesus is everywhere at all times, as he promised ('lo, I am with you always'), and that there is no change in the bread and wine after consecration, neither a physical nor spiritual change. 

 You refer to original sin. Many Protestants agree that people have a propensity to sin ('all sin and fall short of the glory of God'), but most liberal Protestants do not believe in original sin. Where does that idea come from? The fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden? Few mainline Protestants would take that story literally, believing it to be a myth, folklore, and/or legend.

  As I have stated, I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background, but over the years the harsh dogmatism of traditional Catholicism has increasingly troubled me. Perhaps I suffer from too great a curiosity, but I need and enjoy the freedom to investigate, weigh, test, explore, and, yes, even question and doubt various traditional doctrines. I have read widely, including most prominent Church Fathers, watch EWTN, read our Sunday Visitor, etc. But, I can't for a minute believe that a just and merciful God would punish anyone for looking into doctrines and even sidelining some that he cannot in all honesty accept. For example, I really doubt that Mary lived a sinless life. And why is that necessary? Frankly, I prefer that she was normal like you and me. In fact, I often have wondered how Mary and Joseph could have traveled a full day's journey from Jerusalem and not noticed that Jesus, their one and only son, was not with them. As a parent myself, that would have been my first concern. Has Mariology gone too far? I suspect we would disagree on that one.

 Good night and God bless.
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
I have always thought of denominations as groups of churches working together with some kind of formal organization.
Isn’t the subjective nature of the defintion part of the difficulty?
Click to expand...
Yes, the definition is a big problem.

Many people have cited the World Christian Enclyclopedia for a 33k figure.
They are currently stating a 9k number for world wide Christian denominations .
I don’t know how their definition changed or whether Catholics are included
Wold Christian Database
 
This is a duplication of the existing thread "Where are these 40,000 plus denominations?".

Your question has been discussed and answered there.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I disagree that one can differ on so many issues and still maintain a real cohesive unity in Christ. When Jesus tells us the Holy Spirit will deliver all truth to us, is “all” just the basics or moral teachings, theology, and ecclesiology etc? The problem I see with Protestantism is that it isn’t just small things they differ about. The Atonement, how we are saved, sacraments, ecclesiology, Eucharist, sanctification, justification, Mary, saints, Bible, canon, you name it. Compare a Calvinist with a Lutheran or a Lutheran with a Presbyterian, etc. Look at these John MacCarther types compared to a John Stott. Look within Anglicanism itself how you can have such divergent thinkers as Anglo-Catholic who affirm a priesthood that is sacerdotal and catholic and guys like JI Packer and John Stott who claim there is no such thing as a priesthood but rather a presbyterate? They affirm the Westminister Confession as Calvinists in a Church that claims apostolic succession?

I think the “it’s just adiaphora” argument gets stretched pretty thin.
Click to expand...
You bring up a very important point. It comes down to a question of authority. Many people would rather it be me than you. 😉
 
Todd520 said:
A question for clarification, I thought the 33k figure included all denominations of all religions (christian and NON-CHRISTIAN). The name World Christian Encylopedia is sort of a misnomer.
Click to expand...
Whether you thing the name, “World Christian Encylopedia” is a misnomer is of no consequence. It is what it is.

As for the 33,000 - it does NOT include other religions. They are Christian denominations. If it makes one major error - it is in the fact that they call the Catholic Church a "denomination".
It is from the Catholic Church that all seperated denominations are born - not the other way around.
 
elvisman said:
Whether you thing the name, “World Christian Encylopedia” is a misnomer is of no consequence. It is what it is.

As for the 33,000 - it does NOT include other religions. They are Christian denominations. If it makes one major error - it is in the fact that they call the Catholic Church a "denomination".
It is from the Catholic Church that all seperated denominations are born - not the other way around.
Click to expand...
**
Well they are currently claiming 9,000 Christian denominations**
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Roy5,

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head…! 😃 After reading your relativistic presentation on religion, how individuals can pick and choose what they want to believe and disbelieve and, how it really does not matter in the long run and words of scripture are simply open to your personal interpretation - it is quite easy to see the validity in the 40,000 denominations. Actually, maybe there are 40,001!! 😃

There really isn’t any thing else to say, is there Roy:5?

God bless
Click to expand...
There is no unity in Protestantism for disunity is at it’s core. Neither is there consistent, or even coherent, teaching. Effectively there are as many Protestant denominations as there are Protestants. It’s a side effect of the contra-Biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
 
Todd520 said:
Well they are currently claiming 9,000 Christian denominations
Click to expand...
WRONG.

It lists them as follows:
Independents** (about 22000) **
Protestants** (about 9000) **
"Marginals** (about 1600) **
Orthodox** (781) **
Roman Catholics** (242) **
Anglicans** (168) **
The number 33,000 comes from these 6 major groups
****22000 + 9000 + 1600 + 781 + 242 + 168 = 33,791
Independents (non-denominational sects), Protestants (mainline), Anglicans and Marginals are sub-categories under "Protestant".
 
What does it matter if there are one, two or perhaps one million “denominations” ? It does not alter the fact that there is but One Body, and thus One Church of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and therefore even a single “denomination” of it is logically impossible. If people are exagerating, or repeating misinformation, then that is a problem, as that mistake can be used against the logical argument, but still cannot change the simple point : Our Lord has but One Body, His Church.

Pax,
Tim
 
Two points to add -
Their web site now indicates there are 9k Christian Denominations

The link you provided indicated a possible cause for the prior higher count
The source does refer to 33000+ total “Christian” denominations, but it defines the word “denomination” as an organized Christian group within a specific country:
Click to expand...
This approach would in effect assign a new RCC denomination for each country.
elvisman said:
WRONG.

It lists them as follows:
Independents** (about 22000)
Protestants (about 9000)
"Marginals (about 1600) **
Orthodox** (781) **
Roman Catholics** (242) **
Anglicans** (168) **
The number 33,000 comes from these 6 major groups
****22000 + 9000 + 1600 + 781 + 242 + 168 = ****33,791
Independents (non-denominational sects), Protestants (mainline), Anglicans and Marginals are sub-categories under "Protestant".
Click to expand...
If you take your above numbers and divide by the 238 countries, you get a more accurate estimate (too low but better)

It lists them as follows:
Independents (about 92)
Protestants (about 38)
"Marginals (about 7)
Orthodox (3)
Roman Catholics (1)
Anglicans (1)
Total 142
 
=elvisman;7085598]Whether you thing the name, “World Christian Encylopedia” is a misnomer is of no consequence. It is what it is.

As for the 33,000 - it does NOT include other religions. They are Christian denominations. If it makes one major error - it is in the fact that they call the Catholic Church a "denomination".
It is from the Catholic Church that all seperated denominations are born - not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the number of “44,000” is incorrect? However if thre is more than ONE [and certainly there are] can one not ask, because Jesus Founded only One New Faith, One New Covenant, One New Church. READ Eph. Chpter 4.[in excess of over 100 verses in the N.T. prove this]…

Is Jesus Himself the Father of these churches as He is of His CC? How can this be?

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
I agree, Timothy. I see numbers and sizes as academic and irrelevent. The truth cannot be debated with numbers and sizes. Some people argue that a religion has to be large to be relevent and true. Christianity, when it started, was a small sect breaking out of Judaism, yet it is the truth. And yet it is one to this day in polity and cohesion. The Orthodox Church as well. Arguing against Protestantism should be directed at the theology or morality or polity of it, not the size or wide-spread nature of it IMO.
Timothy17 said:
What does it matter if there are one, two or perhaps one million “denominations” ? It does not alter the fact that there is but One Body, and thus One Church of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and therefore even a single “denomination” of it is logically impossible. If people are exagerating, or repeating misinformation, then that is a problem, as that mistake can be used against the logical argument, but still cannot change the simple point : Our Lord has but One Body, His Church.

Pax,
Tim
Click to expand...
 
PJM said:
Perhaps the number of “44,000” is incorrect? However if thre is more than ONE [and certainly there are] can one not ask, because Jesus Founded only One New Faith, One New Covenant, One New Church. READ Eph. Chpter 4.[in excess of over 100 verses in the N.T. prove this]…

Is Jesus Himself the Father of these churches as He is of His CC? How can this be?

Love and prayers,
Pat
Click to expand...
So which of the 242 Roman Catholic Churches “IS THE ONE” and are the others heretical churches?

(I see your point but wish to highlight the data is faulty.)
 
Todd520 said:
Two points to add -
Their web site now indicates there are 9k Christian Denominations

The link you provided indicated a possible cause for the prior higher count
This approach would in effect assign a new RCC denomination for each country.

If you take your above numbers and divide by the 238 countries, you get a more accurate estimate (too low but better)

It lists them as follows:
Independents (about 92)
Protestants (about 38)
"Marginals (about 7)
Orthodox (3)
Roman Catholics (1)
Anglicans (1)
Total 142
Click to expand...
Actually no.
They list hundreds of “Catholic” churches, but many of those are dissident groups that are not even asociated with the Catholic Church.

They also list different rites of the Catholic Church. Those are not denominations, simply rites - traditions.

That being said - there are FAR more Protestant denominations than you claim. In my city alone, there are at least 3 dozen different denominations - and I don’t live in a big town.
 
Timothy17 said:
What does it matter if there are one, two or perhaps one million “denominations” ? It does not alter the fact that there is but One Body, and thus One Church of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and therefore even a single “denomination” of it is logically impossible. If people are exagerating, or repeating misinformation, then that is a problem, as that mistake can be used against the logical argument, but still cannot change the simple point : Our Lord has but One Body, His Church.

Pax,
Tim
Click to expand...
Dear Timothy17,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your remarks above. You have stated the truth exactly and concisely.

This indeed is the fundamental issue for, as I have also remarked previously, even one rival church is one too many since there can only be one “Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and that Church is the Church of Rome founded upon St. Peter.

The mutiplicity of Protestant ecclesial communions is a consequence of their erroneous *sola *scriptura principle, the notion that truth can be determined by recourse to the bible alone. Part of the reasoning behind this belief is that Sacred Scripture is clear and easy for all to comprehend and fathom. However, if Scripture is indeed straightforward and sufficient, then one is bound to ask why have so many different Christian groupings emerged since the Reformation? Many would respond by saying with C.S. Lewis that there is such a thing as “mere Christianity” and that while all orthodox Christians agree on the basics, they may differ on so called “second order issues” or extras. However, when one carefully examines what these different denoninations actually teach, one discovers that they not only disagree on minors - such as whether ladies should wear hats to church or whether it is baptism by immersion or sprinkling - they also disagree on major doctrines such as how one can be saved, whether grace is indefectible, whether baptism is essential to salvation, what the meaning of Holy Communion is, who should be in charge of a particular church and many other key issues. Clearly, there is by no means substantial agreement among Protestant Christians on the “fundamentals of the faith”. Now if the bible was so clear and easy that even the “ploughboy” could understand its message, then should not the entire church be united around one simple, clear teaching from Scipture?

That God has used the myriads of denominations to further the work of the Gospel in the world I would not stop to deny, but then He is always in the business of bringing good out of man’s sinfulness. The Catholic Church values diversity, but the Catholic model is not a multiplicity of different denominations existing as a law unto themselve, but one Flock under one Shepherd; we embrace diversity but not disunity.

The problem which the churches of the Reformation must grapple with is surely that each denomination claims the Holy Spirit’s guidance for its own peculiar interpretations of the bible. Unfortunately, however, they all disagree with one another. So was the Holy Spirit wrong?; Did He lead some of them into truth, but mislead others? In point of fact the Holy Spirit was given within the context of the community of faith. It is primarily the Church which the “pillar and ground of truth” according to the N.T., and individuals are filled with the Holy Spirit as the fruit of that. Therefore, only through the Church can the Holy Spirit work authentically and most fully. Thus it is only the Church which can most authentically interpret Scripture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top