Number of Protestant Denominations

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThePol
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
How on earth a Christian can ask where the Christian center is, but insist that Christ not be mentioned, is beyond me.

I am utterly floored by such a position.
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.
Are you not aware that you just described the majority of Catholics as well?

I guess not.

…
 
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?
I’m with Atemi on this – that you would suggest that Christ should not be the center…that’s shocking, and certainly un-Christian. Instead, I’d ask – how can your central definition of authority be anything but Christ?
 
Atemi << There was definitely no monolithic set of doctrine and intruction constantly flowing out of Rome leading thousands of congregations. This just did not exist at all at the time. >>

“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter, page 128f, 133)

“It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.” (Schmemann from Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter, page 163-164)

“…[by the time of Pope Damasus]…there can be no doubt that large numbers of eastern Christians had by this time become convinced of the genuine superiority of the Roman See in faith and religious insight. The eastern emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring his subjects to accept the doctrine which Peter had committed to the Romans…it was the trustworthy authority of Peter to which the East paid homage in the fourth century, not the wealth nor the power of Rome…From the time when Eleutherus was asked to condemn the Montanists, through the period when Callistus, Stephen and Dionysius revised and interpreted dogma, down to the days when the Nicene creed was defended on the ground of its Roman origin and Liberius and Damasus endorsed or rejected eastern declarations of faith according as they did or did not measure up to their own standards, the Roman bishops asserted their right to speak for the tradition of Peter.” (Shotwell/Loomis, The See of Peter, page 217-228)

“Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it…Thus Rome’s preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding…that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as ‘the archbishop of the whole world’ …It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)

You were saying? It is just this kind of thinking in your post that leads us to

32,797

Protestant denominations. Just kidding. 😃

Phil P
 
I’m with Atemi on this – that you would suggest that Christ should not be the center…that’s shocking, and certainly un-Christian. Instead, I’d ask – how can your central definition of authority be anything but Christ?
Obviously, they all believe in Jesus Christ, more or less - I think what he is driving at is that there should also be some sort of earthly unity, as well, and asking them to point to what it is that unifies them here on earth.

It’s all very well to say the words “Jesus Christ” but I think it’s pretty clear that Protestants mean someone quite different when they say that than we do as Catholics, and also each Protestant group has its own ideas of who Christ is - some of them portray Him as a kind of cosmic Santa Claus who grants to all good boys and girls their requests for material things, while others have the idea of a cosmic warrior king who is going to blow up all the bad people any minute now, and so forth.

As far as I know, there is nothing here on earth that actually unites Protestants - certainly I don’t think anybody would disagree that they vary quite considerably in their doctrines, practices, and traditions.
 
The sad thing is is that nothing you posted controverted what I said, nor could it.

…
Atemi << There was definitely no monolithic set of doctrine and intruction constantly flowing out of Rome leading thousands of congregations. This just did not exist at all at the time. >>

“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter, page 128f, 133)

“It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.” (Schmemann from Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter, page 163-164)

“…[by the time of Pope Damasus]…there can be no doubt that large numbers of eastern Christians had by this time become convinced of the genuine superiority of the Roman See in faith and religious insight. The eastern emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring his subjects to accept the doctrine which Peter had committed to the Romans…it was the trustworthy authority of Peter to which the East paid homage in the fourth century, not the wealth nor the power of Rome…From the time when Eleutherus was asked to condemn the Montanists, through the period when Callistus, Stephen and Dionysius revised and interpreted dogma, down to the days when the Nicene creed was defended on the ground of its Roman origin and Liberius and Damasus endorsed or rejected eastern declarations of faith according as they did or did not measure up to their own standards, the Roman bishops asserted their right to speak for the tradition of Peter.” (Shotwell/Loomis, The See of Peter, page 217-228)

“Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it…Thus Rome’s preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding…that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as ‘the archbishop of the whole world’ …It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)

You were saying? It is just this kind of thinking in your post that leads us to

32,797

Protestant denominations. Just kidding. 😃

Phil P
 
Hey, thanks for all the posts in the thread. I guess Contarini (Edwin) and Atemi can co-author their own book of Christian church and denomination statistics, and get it published also by

Oxford University Press

But for now I’ll stick with

32,797

Protestant denominations. 👍

kc << 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. >>

So how does one logically exclude JWs, Mormons, “Gnostics” and non-trinitarian groups from the “Protestant” category? Setting up “sola scriptura” as the criterion won’t work because there are many different interpretations of what that means. JW’s indeed claim to follow the Bible alone, as interpreted by the Watchtower. Mormons claim to follow the Bible, as interpreted by Joe Smith, Brigham Young, and Salt Lake. They also have other “revelations” but why should that exclude them? Lutherans claim to follow the Bible, interpreted by Luther, the Book of Concord, and other Lutheran traditions. Presbyterians claim to follow the Bible, interpreted by the Westminster Confession. Baptists claim to follow the Bible, interpreted by their baptist confessions. Other Non-trinitarians and Gnostics claim to follow the Bible and get in touch with “true knowledge” and other “revelations” and interpret the Bible by their leaders and traditions, etc. All of these Christian and pseudo-Christian groups have this one thing in common: they can be traced back to the 16th century split with the Catholic Church (Latin, West). That’s how we know they are "Protestant."

Catholics use the Bible, but are united to the Pope, have apostolic succession and an ancient priesthood that traces back to the apostles, from before the 16th century, to the Doctors, Fathers, saints and bishops of the earliest centuries. Orthodox also have a valid apostolic succession, a valid priesthood, and are the “ancient churches” that broke off from Rome in the 11th century. My criterion was: if it ain’t Catholic, and it ain’t Orthodox, it’s Protestant. These groups are Protestant. And if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. 😃

BTW, a denomination according to Barrett: “an organized Christian Church or tradition or religious group or community of believers or aggregate of worship centers or congregations, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions.”

According to Webster: “a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.”

From How Many Protestant Denominations?

Phil P
 
Atemi << The sad thing is is that nothing you posted controverted what I said, nor could it. >>

Sorry, they looked to Rome. Is that what you said, that they looked to Rome for their teaching? I thought you said the early Church was more like baptists.

Phil P
 
As for “monolithic” doctrine and liturgy, here’s one more quote I like to toss out:

“The society was well known and unmistakable. Its doctrine was everywhere the same; its worship, with rich diversity of forms, centered around one Eucharistic memorial. It had an organized hierarchy for worship and for the pastorate of souls. This hierarchy maintained union between the local branches, and did so in the name and by the authority of Christ. However far back the history is traced, no date can be assigned, however roughly, for the appearance of Catholicism in the Church. The Church was Catholic from the outset.” (Anglican Canon A.J. Mason, cited in The Church and Infallibility [1954] by BC Butler, page 37-38)

I’m typing in this whole book, should be done in a couple weeks.

And one more:

"To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (oikoumene). This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. Only here did God accept sacrifices, only here was there confident intercession for those who were in error, only here were good works fruitful, only here did the powerful bond of love hold men together and ‘only from the catholic church does truth shine forth.’ " (Lutheran historian [at the time] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, volume 1, page 334-335)

Combine these, with the primacy of Rome above. Thanks. 🙂

Phil P
 
Hmm, Anglican consensus. Is that way that Archbishop of Canterbury was murdered in his cathedral?
At that point the Church of England was part of the Catholic Church, so I’m not sure where you are going with that!
Is not the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican Church, and was for much of history?
No, the monarch has not been called “head” since Henry VIII, I believe. But yes, the monarch is the “supreme governor” (I think that’s the right term) of the Church of England. Not, however, of the Anglican Communion as a whole. In practice this means that the Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop (and other bishops), though as in other things the Queen has influence (supposedly she made remarks this year expressing her opposition to any disciplinary action against the Episcopal Church, and some have speculated that this might have an effect on the Archbishop’s actions). I do not know what if any control the government has over the archbishop once he is appointed–as far as I know they have none, though presumably there is some procedure by which he could be deposed in case of extreme misconduct or something.

Edwin
 
Hey, thanks for all the posts in the thread. I guess Contarini (Edwin) and Atemi can co-author their own book of Christian church and denomination statistics, and get it published also by

Oxford University Press
Phil,

This is an appeal to authority to avoid dealing with the substantive question I raised. You simply have no grounds for using this figure for Protestants when you know perfectly well that they count each national body as a separate “denomination.”

The figure says nothing about which groups are unified and which aren’t. It’s useless, and you have proven yourself completely unable to defend your use of it. I am not accustomed to see you act so unreasonably.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
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.)
This argument is self-refuting. If Protestants rebel against all authority, then obviously we are entitled to rebel against the statement of James H. Nichols. And if Protestants do not rebel against all authority, then James H. Nichols is wrong. (From looking at the book briefly online, I get the impression it contains a load of pompous, triumphalistic mumbo-jumbo of the sort that mainline Protestants produced in spades in the mid-20th century when they thought they were the rulers of creation.)

So either way, your citation of this book has accomplished absolutely nothing.

This whole thread is so pointless. You guys are just running your heads against a brick wall–and why? You are making illogical arguments to establish something that really won’t help you when you have established it.

Edwin
 
Sorry, folks. I have never understood, on any of the threads on this topic, why the topic is even remotely important. The 33,000 figure is ridiculously inflated. Can anyone here, off the top of your head, name even 3300 Protestant denominations? Or 330? No, you can’t; don’t lie and tell me you can. The figure just serves for needless Protestant-bashing.

Besides, PhilV (whom I regard as a very smart man and a great brother in Christ—why you’re so off the wall here I don’t know), if you accept the authority of the 33,000 figure, you also have to accept the 224 figure for Catholic churches. So much for one holy and apostolic church. So I’m willing to say the figure for the Catholic Church is off by a factor of 224 if all the rest of us would be willing to say the Protestant figure is also off by a factor of 224. This would bring the Protestant figure down to about 150 denominations, wouldn’t it? Which certainly seems more realistic.
 
I’d actually challenge any Roman Catholic to name even 100 denominations (which are considered Protestant). Not that I necessarily think this is impossible, but I doubt anyone here can do it, or certainly, that anyone has done the research to be able to do it thus far. They’re just accepting what some author said, or what the common people say, as though it’s fact…which is exactly what Protestants are accused of.
 
I’d actually challenge any Roman Catholic to name even 100 denominations (which are considered Protestant).
One of the most serious problems is this: too many modernist Roman Catholics want the sole right to determine who is, and who is not, a “Catholic.”

They also reserve the sole right to determine who is, and who is not, Protestant.

And we all know the results of this: a perfectly padded conclusion.
Not that I necessarily think this is impossible, but I doubt anyone here can do it, or certainly, that anyone has done the research to be able to do it thus far. They’re just accepting what some author said, or what the common people say, as though it’s fact…which is exactly what Protestants are accused of.
Even worse of a problem is that they are not just accepting what the author said. They are totally disregarding what the author said but cite him anyway.

…
 
Which is true? Is there a source for 20,000 denominations? Is 8,196 accurate? Thank you!
The number is even greater than 20,000 by now.

The source is here:

g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZSFEB0W7L.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20.jpg

amazon.com/World-Christian-Encyclopedia-Comparative-Religionists/dp/0195103181

The publisher, Oxford Press, is located in Cary, NC, and I have held this book (two volumes, actually) in my own hands.

For a more conservative number, try this:

worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/

Either way, Protestantism is fragmented and getting more so.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
I’d actually challenge any Roman Catholic to name even 100 denominations (which are considered Protestant). Not that I necessarily think this is impossible, but I doubt anyone here can do it, or certainly, that anyone has done the research to be able to do it thus far. They’re just accepting what some author said, or what the common people say, as though it’s fact…which is exactly what Protestants are accused of.
A Lutheran friend of mine says there are 53 different flavors of Lutheran in the United States alone, and no, they are not all the same…just ask anyone in the Wisconsin or Missouri Synod what they think of the ELCA.

Then we can start on the Presbyterians (or Split P’s as they call themselves). 😛
 
cp << Besides, PhilV (whom I regard as a very smart man and a great brother in Christ—why you’re so off the wall here I don’t know), if you accept the authority of the 33,000 figure, you also have to accept the 224 figure for Catholic churches >>

Hey I might be nuts on this one, but I feel like defending my buddies Steve Ray and Tim Staples who also use the figure. And I’ve used it myself. So…

Actually the number is “242 RC denominations” I made a mistake with my subtraction in my initial post in this thread. So with my bad math corrected it is:

33,820 (total “Christian”) - 242 (Catholic) - 781 (Orthodox) = 32,797 (Protestant)

The formula is TOTAL - CATH - ORTH = PROTS.

BTW, you don’t have to divide this number further by the number of countries since that’s accounted for when I subtract the total RC denoms (242, that’s one for each country). Its the total number of “Christian” denoms, minus the total number of RC denoms, minus the total number of Orthodox denoms, gives us the total number of Prot denoms. It may be off, but it’s not my numbers. The quibble is over the definition of “Protestant” and “denomination.” Fine, you can narrow these down further and exclude all kinds of Protestants if you like. For example, you can narrow your definitions down so much that Baptists can exclude Anglicans, and Presbyterians or Lutherans can exclude Seventh-day Adventists, etc.

As for NAMING 100 specific Protestant denoms, that’s easy. There are at least 300+ named specifically in Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Frank Spencer Mead, et al (2001, 11th edition). That’s in the U.S. alone. And there are more than 100 on this page. OK, there are few “Catholic” out of communion with Rome ones as well. Our bad. :mad: :confused:

Phil P
 
All right, all right, I’ve thought about this and I might do this:

Since there are supposedly 242 RC denoms, when there is actually 1, we need to divide the number of Prot denoms by 242. OK. That gives us…

32,797 (Protestant) / 242 =

135.52479

OK. That is the “new figure.” I feel very sorry for the .52479 denomination since its not even a whole number. All right, I’ve never been good at math or statistics. Now we know that there are Lies, Damned Lies, Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia, and PhilVaz insane defense of this number. :confused:

Phil P
 
OK some more compromise. How about from now on…we can say

Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia does indeed refer to “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries” (Table 1-5, vol 1, page 16), but he also includes a small number of “Catholic” and “Orthodox” denominations in that total number, and the source is not very useful until we come to an agreement on what is meant by “denomination” and “Christian.”

There! I’m trying to be reasonable and I won’t defend the number again (in public 😃 ) in the 33,000th thread we have on the subject. :whacky:

Another useful source is the one Randy linked to above: World Christian Database with extensive data available on 9,000 Christian denominations, 13,000 ethnolinguistic peoples, as well as data on 5,000 cities, 3,000 provinces and 238 countries. It’s based on the same Barrett encyclopedia and housed at Gordon-Conwell seminary.

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top