Number of Protestant Denominations

[Ani_Ibi]

jmcrae:

…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.

Denom-splitting was encouraged then? Folks could experiment with alternative lifestyles quite freely?

 

[Teflon93]

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.

…

And the correct number is…?

 

[Teflon93]

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.

…

Very relevant, actually. It is the point of the thread.

 

[Teflon93]

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.)

I do not recall saying anything of the sort.

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

Hmm, Anglican consensus. Is that way that Archbishop of Canterbury was murdered in his cathedral?

Is not the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican Church, and was for much of history?

You are an historian, sir—let’s not woolgather!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

And the correct number is…?

The correct number is 1 but you have to say it 33 000 times. That is very time intensive. So popular usage has evolved allowing us to say 33 000 once. I suppose we could compromise though. Thoughts?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hmm, Anglican consensus. Is that way that Archbishop of Canterbury was murdered in his cathedral?

This was political, not theological though wasn’t it, Teflon?

 

[PC_Master]

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.

Actually, couldn’t you say this about any denomination which traces itself to the apostolic churches? This includes the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglican Church (and Episcopal), and the Lutherans too…and that’s being conservative.

“We are the one true church, or the one true belief system. Outside of our church, or our beliefs, it’s a lottery. We’re the sure bet. Go with us! God’s intent isn’t to have a lottery amongst all these others, so you must go with us!”

 

[Atemi]

And the correct number is…?

If you look at the actual source cited, it lists 8,973 denominations under the grouping of “Protestant.”

But the problem with that is that also includes all JW, Mormon, Gnostic, and marginally Christian denoms as well.

In any event, every RC that uses the “33,000” is using that from works they read that willfully or carelessly incorrectly cited a work that says no such thing.

Not even close.

…

 

[jmcrae]

Denom-splitting was encouraged then? Folks could experiment with alternative lifestyles quite freely?

More “rebelliously” than “freely,” I would say, since there were always established authorities of one kind or another objecting to these activities - the Catholic Church, the local or national government of the place where the schism took place, and even other more established Protestant leaders. However, it was pretty common, anyway, and Luther (I think) regretted opening the can of worms at one point, when he said something to the effect that every cow herd and milk maid now fancies himself or herself to be a great theologian, and that although he remained convinced that he had been correct to leave the Catholic Church and start up the Lutheran Church, he had not intended for quite so many other people to follow his example in so doing.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

More “rebelliously” than “freely,” I would say…

And the early Reformers were OK with rebellion, encouraged it as a form of semper reformanda?

 

[jmcrae]

But the problem with that is that also includes all JW, Mormon, Gnostic, and marginally Christian denoms as well.

These all have perfectly legitimate pedigrees leading back to the Protestant Reformation, and have just as much right to be called “Protestant” as James White’s church, the Reformed Baptists, which I believe is actually younger than both the JWs and the Mormons.

That they disagree with what some Protestants consider to be “core doctrine” is actually a point in their favour, since one of the sterling hallmarks of Protestantism is that it rebels against the established order - in A Primer for Protestants, by James H.Nichols, indeed, we are told that the Protestant who believes exactly what his parents taught him, without adding to it, subtracting from it, or rebelling against it, is nothing more than a Catholic who happens to be following a Protestant tradtion. (He seems to consider this a negative thing.)

 

[jmcrae]

And the early Reformers were OK with rebellion, encouraged it as a form of semper reformanda?

They favoured it in themselves, but they regarded it as a negative in others, especially their own detractors. For example, the Anglicans were proud of themselves for standing up to That Pope!! but when the Puritans did the same thing to them, they drove them into the sea, which is how the Puritans ultimately ended up in America.

But yes, rebelliousness was considered “courageous” and was encouraged - as long as you confined yourself to rebelling against the Catholic Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…we are told that the Protestant who believes exactly what his parents taught him, without adding to it, subtracting from it, or rebelling against it, is nothing more than a Catholic who happens to be following a Protestant tradtion. (He seems to consider this a negative thing.)

Are people aware that there are expectations for novelty on their lives? If so, how do folks go about finding novelty? I would think that it is much easier for the average working joe/jill to just settle into an all-new reformed small-c catholicism with a small-m magisterium and small-t traditions. As long we don’t use those names which seem to invoke horror.

 

[FrankLawrence]

I don’t think numbers are the issue, nor is unity or lack thereof among Protestants. Even if there was only one Protestant denomination, it would still be wrong, no matter how unified, because it is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. . At the time the New Testament was written, there was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, under the leadership of Peter and the Apostles, started by Jesus Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, in ultimate submission to God. The Bible came from this Church, and included 1 Timothy 3:15 which refers to the Church of the living God as “The pillar and bulwark of truth.” It is quite pompous for anyone to have the audacity to think that their own personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to what has been the consistent interpretation since before the words were even put into writing. 2 Peter 3:16 even tells us that parts of Scripture are difficult to understand. 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us “God is a God not of confusion, but of peace.”. Rebellion against the Catholic Church is rebellion against authority that was instituted by God. (See Matthew 16:18-19.) Sola-Scriptura spits in the face of Proverbs 3:5. We don’t need to count denominations to prove that Sola-Scriptura is a flawed doctrine. We don’t even need to assess levels of unity among Protestants to prove that Sola-Scriptura is wrong. All we need to know on the issue is that God gave authority to the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church rejects the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura. While through Baptism, we have a unity, though an imperfect one, with our separated Protestant brethren, the combination of my above mentioned Scriptures should clearly point out who is unified with the Truth, and who has broken unity with the Truth, retaining only parts of the Truth. I pray that all who are seeking Truth will come home to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

But yes, rebelliousness was considered “courageous” and was encouraged - as long as you confined yourself to rebelling against the Catholic Church.

And if you didn’t confine yourself to rebelling against the Catholic Church… what?

 

[jmcrae]

And if you didn’t confine yourself to rebelling against the Catholic Church… what?

Great wars broke out, a lot of them were burned at the stake, etc., and a lot of them were pushed into the ocean, and those who survived ended up in America, where they came up with the idea of “freedom of religion” which is why you could click a few keys right now, buy a doctorate of theology from degreesRus.com, rent a hall, send out invitations all day tomorrow, and have your very own Church of You set up and ready to go by Sunday morning.

 

[Palladio]

Actually, couldn’t you say this about any denomination which traces itself to the apostolic churches? This includes the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglican Church (and Episcopal), and the Lutherans too…and that’s being conservative.

Thanks.

No: you could not, in good faith, because the tracing you mention is plain nonsense: no apostolic succession, as many doctrines as doctors, wrong Bible, in translation, every man his own interpreter, predestination… It goes on and on so that the historic argument falls flat and lame.

The claims of Protestants fall into either major or minor claims: if major, they are false, if minor no reason to be apart from the RCC. Major or minor, the claims now multiply atomistically and solipsistically.

Protestants often pretend otherwise: that’s rhetoric, understandable enough, but false and self-defensive.

Lottery or the RCC: that’s the choice.

God bless.

 

[Palladio]

If you look at the actual source cited, it lists 8,973 denominations under the grouping of “Protestant.”

But the problem with that is that also includes all JW, Mormon, Gnostic, and marginally Christian denoms as well.

In any event, every RC that uses the “33,000” is using that from works they read that willfully or carelessly incorrectly cited a work that says no such thing.

Not even close.

…

But how on earth can any Protestant claim another Christian denomination is marginal? What principle–true and uncontested–would decide where the center is (please, oh, please, don’t say Christ) to know where the margin is?

What we witness in the lottery numbers is the end game of protestanism: multiplying in ideology, weakening in moral import or influence, and impossible to distinguish from the public square.

 

[steveandersen]

And if you didn’t confine yourself to rebelling against the Catholic Church… what?

Ask the Dissenters in England or the religions partisans of the Peasant’s Revolt in Germany.

Of course one side saying that they didn’t oppress or kill as many as the other is hardly something to be proud about. Wars in general but religious wars in particular can bring out the very worst in us.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Interesting analysis, Phil—the only issue I can see is that the Protestant bucket is more of an Other Christian bucket, and Protestants will surely quibble with what makes a “real” Protestant denomination. >>

Sorry typo from my original post on page #1. I must have been tired.

I typed 224 instead of 242.

The numbers are…now let me get it right this time…

33,820 (total) - 242 (Catholic) - 781 (Orthodox) = 32,797 (Protestant).

So sorry, I repent of my lie earlier. The number of Prot denoms is now at

32,797

I was WAY OFF last time.

Phil P