Number of Protestant Denominations

[Teflon93]

Well, it depends on how you define the radical groups who were running around. If you count every group of Anabaptists and every wacky “spiritualist” sitting in his study dreaming about the ideal spiritual Church, then you are right that there were quite a lot by 1546. Not counting those groups, however, there were three “denominations” that had separated from Rome since 1517: the Lutherans, the Reformed, and the “Anglicans”–i.e., the independent Church of England led by Henry VIII, which had not yet become unambiguously Protestant in theology. The boundaries between the Lutherans and Reformed were still fluid, and Henry occasionally flirted with the Lutherans, while the Archbishop of Canterbury could probably be described as Reformed in theology by this time.

Then there were the pre-Reformation groups: the Bohemian Brethren, the one group that still maintained a clearly independent identity; the Utraquist Hussites, who had an ambiguous relationship with the Catholic Church; the Waldenses, who had merged with Reformed Protestantism by Luther’s death; and the Lollards, whose last martyr died in 1532 and whose status by 1546 no one really knows (presumably they had merged with Protestantism, though Eamon Duffy claims that they merged with the Anabaptist movement).

No. This reveals how completely you misunderstand the Reformation. The “magisterial” Reformers regarded disunity with utter horror. They justified their separation from Rome because they regarded Rome as Antichrist, but they certainly did not think that separation was trivial, much less a good thing. I suggest that you read the first few chapters of book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes (1559 edition).

I don’t blame you–later Protestants have read their own love of schism back into the Reformers. And, of course, the fact that the Reformers didn’t want to establish a bunch of competing “denominations” helps establish just what a failure the Magisterial Reformation was!

Edwin

This is very interesting. How would you differentiate the denominations at this early stage? What made a Calvinist different than a Lutheran or an Anabaptist in 1546? (Please note the early date).

This might provide key insight into determining Christian denominations at present.

 

[Contarini]

This is very interesting. How would you differentiate the denominations at this early stage? What made a Calvinist different than a Lutheran or an Anabaptist in 1546? (Please note the early date).

I used that date because Ani Ibi said “in Luther’s lifetime,” and Luther died in February 1546.

Lutherans and Reformed (I wouldn’t use the word “Calvinist” this early) explicitly disagreed with each other over Eucharistic theology and were not able to subscribe to the same confessions of faith. What made it complicated (other than the ambiguous and fluid state of the Church of England) was that a number of South German city-states had been trying to maintain unity between the two camps. Strasbourg had in 1536 signed an agreement with Luther, which would eventually make Strasbourg Lutheran. By 1546, though, it was still in pretty good relations with the Swiss (Reformed). So the boundaries weren’t yet completely solid, but it was clear that Wittenberg and Zurich, say, were not in communion with each other.

This does raise a lot of the questions raised also by Barrett’s numbering. You could argue that the Protestant church in each territory and city-state should be counted as a separate “denomination,” in the sense that it had the ability to make its own religious policy. That would make a great many–dozens at least–by 1546. But given that the Lutherans on the one hand and (less firmly) the Reformed on the other worked together, drew up common statements of faith, sent theologians to visit each other’s churches and give advice on church organization and discipline, etc., I think this wouldn’t really address the question of unity.

By and large, the Reformed at this point tended to see the Lutherans as part of a common Protestant front, but the Lutherans didn’t reciprocate.

Anabaptists were told apart primarily by the fact that they rebaptized people. There were individual theologians who questioned infant baptism without actually rebaptizing, and it’s often hard to distinguish between Anabaptists and “spiritualists” (people who criticized all existing churches). There were also elements of the Anabaptist/spiritualist movement that denied the Trinity, some of whom have been classified separately as “evangelical rationalists” (that would include Michael Servetus, burned by Protestant Geneva; and more importantly for institutional purposes the “Socinians” who eventually established non-Trinitarian churches in Eastern Europe).

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

That’s really the central point here – you guys are claiming that the Roman Catholic Church has a required unity that the rest of the denominations out there don’t have.

Yes we are.
PC Master:

Now, that’s all well and good to say, but you need some practical examples.

And we have them.
PC Master:

Heck, I’ve already heard differing interpretations of the meaning of the words of various popes throughout history.

From who?
PC Master:

Can you authoritatively tell me every detail of faith as it applies to my daily life?

I would not presume to. But the Catechism is online. You can exercise your freedom if you want to look things up.
PC Master:

Will the pope do so, completely free of error?

Gosh, do you think the Pope has the time? Do you think the Pope sees you as a child who is unable to look for answers himself? No no no. That’s not the way it works.
PC Master:

And thus, you’re allowing for disunity.

No no no. You have this all wrong. We are allowing for differences and freedom among our many peoples and cultures. In matters of faith and morals, we are unified. In other matters we practically percolate with variety. Never a dull moment on this side of the Tiber.
PC Master:

…just not on the things you consider to be major. But guess what – Protestant denominations (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc) are generally united on the important stuff too…within their denomination.

mmmmm… yes… but isn’t the question about how many denominations there are?
PC Master:

To claim there is only one Roman Catholic Church, but that there are 33,000 protestant churches, is to say that all Roman Catholics agree on all matters of faith completely. And that’s simply a lie.

A lie! I am shocked at such rash language! Surely you can find a more discursive way of expressing your skepticism.

 

[Stylite]

To claim there is only one Roman Catholic Church, but that there are 33,000 protestant churches, is to say that all Roman Catholics agree on all matters of faith completely. And that’s simply a lie.

So every dissenter is a denomination unto himself? So there are in fact more than 30,000 protesting denominations ​

That being said, a real issue here is whether there truly is one correct set of doctrinal understanding. I think we would all agree that in the mind of God, this correct understanding exists.

If there are people who disagree with God’s correct doctrinal understanding does that somehow invalidate that set of doctrines?

No. Therefore, IF the set of doctrinal understanding is correct, it does not harm the doctrine if one man disagrees or does not understand. Those who do assent to this set of doctrinal understanding can be said to be in true unity with God’s church. So, the unity is based on the conformity of the doctrine to the mind of God, not the assent of the individual.

I apologize if this is a bit convoluted.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s an unfair definition. Authority doesn’t have to be vested in one individual. In the United Methodist Church, for instance, the “magisterium” is the General Conference, though there are certain things General Conference cannot change.

Edwin

Wouldn’t the head of that denomination then be the Moderator of that General Council, in that case? Even though they change frequently, the buck still stops with that person, who would be the spokesperson to the outside world of what that denomination actually teaches or holds to be true (as opposed to the opinions of those who write for its magazines).

I should think that every Protestant group that consists of more than one congregation has a “top committee” (however informally constructed) which in turn has a committee leader (even if they change leaders every time they meet, or even if it just happens to be the person who is recording the notes of the meetings) who would be the person who is accountable for the leadership of that group.

 

[Teflon93]

Non sequitur. Also petitio principii, for that matter. You are starting with the assumption that ++Jefferts Schori’s authority is the deciding factor (never mind that the Episcopal Church is one constituent of the Anglican Communion), so obviously you wind up with the conclusion that a “recognized authority” is the decisive factor. You started out with it!

Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.

Do you think there’d be a schism were she not elevated to dramatis personae?

Doctrine doesn’t create itself—there’s a reason why it takes a Luther or a Calvin or a Zwingli to push radical doctrinal changes ad posse ad esse.

Acknowledgment of the Presiding Bishop’s authority is one of the things that makes you part of the Episcopal Church. However, General Convention has far more authority than the PB. Similarly, in the Communion both the ABC and the Lambeth Conference are signs and instruments of unity, but neither have any direct authority over the individual provinces (well, the ABC obviously has authority over his own!).

How come, if authority doesn’t matter? Ceteris parabus, why insist on recognizing anyone at all? Who can speak ex cathedra where no authority is recognized?

I am not disputing that the Episcopal Church is on its way to schism–indeed, quite a few parishes have left outright already.

Edwin

Volente non fit injuria.

Deo gratias.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

So every dissenter is a denomination unto himself? So there are in fact more than 30,000 protesting denominations ​

That being said, a real issue here is whether there truly is one correct set of doctrinal understanding. I think we would all agree that in the mind of God, this correct understanding exists.

That there are people who disagree with God’s correct doctrinal understanding somehow invalidate that that set of doctrines is correct?

No. Therefore, IF the set of doctrinal understanding is correct, it does not harm the doctrine if one man disagrees or does not understand. Those who do assent to this set of doctrinal understanding can be said to be in true unity with God’s church. So, the unity is based on the conformity of the doctrine to the mind of Goddoctrine, not the assent of the individual.

I apologize if this is a bit convoluted.

Its convoluted. It assumes that Jesus gave instructions for his Church just for the sake of giving instructions; that He didn’t really care if anyone was listening.

He did not give His instruction assuming that harm could or could not come to the instruction. He gave His instruction assuming that harm could or could not come to people depending on how closely they followed His instruction.

Well, of course the doctrine is in conformity with the God doctrine: it is the God doctrine.

 

[Atemi]

I am sorry. Your math and analysis here is horrible, Phil.

It is the same kind of analysis that leads to these abuses of statistics that are so obviously erroneous.

 

[Stylite]

Its convoluted. It assumes that Jesus gave instructions for his Church just for the sake of giving instructions; that He didn’t really care if anyone was listening.

He did not give His instruction assuming that harm could or could not come to the instruction. He gave His instruction assuming that harm could or could not come to people depending on how closely they followed His instruction.

Well, of course the doctrine is in conformity with the God doctrine: it is the God doctrine.

You quoted me before I could clean up my post

Yes, I am speaking in general principles with the point being that the unity we are talking about here is not wounded by dissent.

The argument that since there are catholics who disagree with the church therefore the church does not have unity doesn’t fly.

 

[Teflon93]

I am sorry. Your math and analysis here is horrible, Phil.

It is the same kind of analysis that leads to these abuses of statistics that are so obviously erroneous.

And the correct number is…?

 

[Atemi]

That number is comical as it includes Jehovahs W’s, Mormons, Gnostics, Non-Trinitarian groups, many more that don’t hold to Sola Scriptura. The independent baptists groups alone probably number into the thousands even though the vast majority of doctrine is essentially the same.

Unfortunately, Anti-protestant’s dont seem to mind bending the truth to get to the 33,000 number. Not quite Christian is it? You may not like protestants, but perpetuating untruths should not be a trait you want to display to the world.

If you think your figure is accurate will you also accept FROM THE SAME SOURCE that the Roman Catholic Church has killed 4,951,000 martyrs?

Exactly.

Repeating this error when it is plainly shown to be error is the “Jack Chick” method of anti-Protestant apologetics.

We all have our “Jack Chick” arguments, and this silly “33,000” is one of them.

…

 

[Palladio]

I appreciate the conversation, especially the learning displayed by some, Edwin most of all.

Back to numbers: a number of six would be a roll of the die for a non-believer; twelve of dice.

Anything greater than twelve becomes a lottery, which is the present situation.

Outside of the RCC (which I’ll use as a basis of comparison), Christianity is a lottery.

If a lottery is God’s will, God is–worse than a dice thrower–a prankster.

Yet, God is neither, so the Christian lottery cannot be God’s will.

It cannot even be, but by the wildest contortions, Christian, but in name.

And the ‘Christian’ lottery is known by its works, aligning itself with, inter alia mala, divorce, gay marriage, and abortion: a lottery impossible to separate from town hall or the playboy channel.

The reformation has resulted in deformation, degradation, devolution: atoms within fragments spinning without order.

I pray for my Christian brothers and sisters–wherever they are in the lottery–to join the only game in town: the RCC. The stakes are the highest, and you are losing if you are out, bound to win if in.

God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

Speaking of autocrats, how far does this denom-splitting go back? Anyone remember how many denoms there were during Luther’s time? I would expect that it was an acceptable – almost noble – thing. Semper reformanda would necessarily result in many novelties which must have won quick favour among the folks. Has anyone looked into this aspect?

Before Hallowe’en night of 1517, or after?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stylite:

You quoted me before I could clean up my post

Mee-meep! Whoooooosh!

Stylite:

Yes, I am speaking in general principles with the point being that the unity we are talking about here is not wounded by dissent.

Yes. Very eloquently worded.

Stylite:

The argument that since there are catholics who disagree with the church therefore the church does not have unity doesn’t fly.

No it doesn’t fly. It plummets to the bottom of the canyon with a long whistle and ends with a tiny little white puff of canyon dust.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Before Hallowe’en night of 1517, or after?

Let no one say that I did not offer choice. Before, after, or in between is very good.

 

[Atemi]

And the correct number is…?

Irrelevant.

What we do know is that the correct number is NOT “33,000.”

This can be plainly seen and deduced from the original work cited. This will not stop the anti-Protestant machine, however, who deems such falsities will always be an acceptable method of evangelisation.

…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

Repeating this error when it is plainly shown to be error is the “Jack Chick” method of anti-Protestant apologetics.

Has Jack Chick crossed the Tiber? Where have I been? Another thing I missed is the plain showing of the error. Could you direct me to same, please? Thank you.

Atemi:

We all have our “Jack Chick” arguments

Do we? I’ve really been mising out lately.

Atemi:

and this silly “33,000” is one of them.

33K is a Jack Chick argument. Does he know of the honour you are according him?

 

[jmcrae]

Let no one say that I did not offer choice. Before, after, or in between is very good.

Before, there was one Catholic Church, and five or six Eastern Orthodox Churches which had gone into schism during the 1000s AD., and then remained stable in their individual churches.

After, we began with Lutheranism, which was followed by various forms of the Anabaptist movement, including Mennonism and the various different groups of Zwingli’s followers. This was reacted to by Calvin, thus, Calvinism, which spawned Presbyterianism and the Dutch Reformed Churches. For political reasons, we then got Anglicanism, and from there, it was pretty much a free-for-all - anybody who could read the Bible and preach a decent, charismatic sermon could start up his or her own church, and that’s pretty much what they did, and are still doing even today.

 

[Contarini]

Do you think there’d be a schism were she not elevated to dramatis personae?

Oh yes. Bishop Robinson’s election, not Bishop Schori’s elevation, was the catalyst. Most of the “Network” bishops do not have a problem with women’s ordination, although there is also the fact that Schori is generally speaking a more straightforward social-justice liberal and less of a mystical “liberal Catholic” than her predecessor. (There are disturbing rumors that some of the conservative bishops voted for her election in the hope of precipitating schism–a very wicked thing if it really happened.)

How come, if authority doesn’t matter?

I do not recall saying anything of the sort.

Who can speak ex cathedra where no authority is recognized?

Don’t you have it backwards? Authority is a much broader concept than “ex cathedra.”

Authority in Anglicanism rests in consensus. It’s messy by “Roman” standards, but it has worked pretty well until now. The Communion is trying to create “instruments of unity” that actually have teeth, but that’s like mending the nets (to quote the title of the document that laid out a proposal for tighter forms of unity) in the middle of a storm.

One of two things is going to happen after Sept. 30. Either the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to impose some serious discipline on the Episcopal Church, probably in the form of “disinvitations” to next year’s Lambeth Conference (really the only thing he can do under the current set-up, though I guess he could also declare that Episcopal priests are no longer automatically welcome to officiate in the Church of England, etc.); or the African and other conservative bishops are going to break with Canterbury. I’m afraid that the latter is more probable at this point. I think ++Williams is likely to try to take some sort of step, but he doesn’t seem prepared to tell the Episcopal bishops (at least those who stand behind the official line) that they can’t show up at Lambeth, and I don’t think (though I could be wrong) that anything else will satisfy the conservative provinces.

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Irrelevant.

I am not following you. Why?

Atemi:

What we do know is that the correct number is NOT “33,000.”

Who is ‘we’? What is the correct number?

Atemi:

This can be plainly seen and deduced from the original work cited.

‘Can be’ and ‘is’ are two different things. Can you show us the math please?

Atemi:

This will not stop the anti-Protestant machine, however, who deems such falsities will always be an acceptable method of evangelisation.

I am completely flummoxed. Are you suggesting that Protestantism is unified in doctrine? I was going to say that the denoms are unified in protesting against Catholicism but that is neither fair nor accurate. So I won’t say it. Why? Because I have seen many pastors adamantly refuse to base their denoms’ existence in relation to Catholicism. They seem to be quite happy singing, praising God, and being instruments of God’s healing without ever deconstructing Catholic history once.