Number of Protestant Denominations

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

The failure I was speaking of is the ability to maintain unity, and to preserve God’s truth. It has not maintained unity – many groups have disagreed with it and have broken away – that’s not unity.

Actually it is unity of doctrine and community. Because God’s truth has been preserved in the Catholic Church. The groups who split off did not preserve God’s truth. They invented something which was comfortable to them – the easy way.
PC Master:

As for preserving God’s truth – that’s best left for another thread.

We’re defining denomination aren’t we?
Ani Ibi:

Speaking of communion, in John 6 we see that disciples ‘walked away’ and that Jesus’ let them’ walk away. According to your logic, that would mean that Jesus also failed. And we know that He did not.

PC Master:

They walked away from “Christianity” all together. They didn’t walk away from Jesus, yet continue to call themselves Christian. Bad analogy.

How do you know? Are these not exactly the folks who split on the basis of doctrine and split on the basis of community? Two criteria for denomination? Can John 6 not be read as a prefiguration of the Reformation?
Ani Ibi:

Faulty analogy. Where there is splitting off in authority and in community, there is denominationalization. Saying Rosary prayers has nothing to do with splitting off in authority and community.

PC Master:

So it’s a matter of central authority? So what of the many baptist churches who claim no central authority but Christ?

They are misrepresenting what actually happens.

The 3 B’s of Baptist are: Bible, Budget, and Baptism. Somebody has to hold the purse strings. Somebody has to decide what falls within the purvey of ‘Baptist’ and what does not. After all, yall can’t have people venerating the saints at the local church, now kin ye? And yall can’t have people being baptised by dipping their toes in rosewater, now kin ye?

There are bottom lines among Baptists. Every bottom line is a new denomination.
PC Master:

If they all claim to have no earthly binding authority, doesn’t that make them all the same denomination?

What people claim and what is true are sometimes different things.
Ani Ibi:

I would say very. Why? Because on what basis are you going to determine the ‘true’ Baptist church?

PC Master:

Belief in certain tenets of faith.

So a tradition then. And who interprets that tradition? A magisterium or magisteria. Yet I venture to say you won’t find many Baptists referring to their magisteria and their traditions.
PC Master:

It’s no different for Roman Catholics.

Yet as regard magisteria and traditions yall like to say that none exist in Protestantism. It is different for Catholics because we have nothing to hide and therefore hide nothing. We don’t have an elephant in our room.
PC Master:

To be a valid Roman Catholic, you must believe certain things. The difference is that these things are more extensive than most other denominations.

No, the difference is that we say what we believe straight up. Whereas your pastors pretend you don’t have a hierarchy. You have an elephant in the room. We don’t.

 

[Teflon93]

This isnt logical and logic is about all I have to offer. Are you assuming that all Islamists are united under one “denomination”? That’s not true. I dont know a lot, but I do know there are many denominations in Islam. So if you wish to compare the Catholic Church as a “religion” separate from Christianity, then in order to compare apples to apples you must chose an Islamic “religion” (Sunni, Shiite, etc) to determine what the largest “religion” is.

Islam is clearly not unified, as anyone who is even passingly familiar with the notion of the Caliphate and the split between Sunnis, Shi’a, and other smaller Muslim sects would understand.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Palladio:

I think it is no wonder and that there is no wonder: the logic, internal to Protestantism, is atomization; what we are seeing now–that you allude to-- is that it is down to each Christian for himself, so long as he just latches on to Jesus! …

Oh the Emerging Church Movement is much much more insidious than that!

Some folks do get a little antsy about bits being taken out of the Bible. Those folks are called ‘emotional’ by the pastors promoting ECM and these folks are shamed into silence.

In the links I gave you, I pointed out Dan Wallace’s slippery suggestion that folks in the pew be either isolated or insulated from the academy of scholars.

First of all there is no practical difference between isolating and insulating folks. The upshot is that folks in the pew aren’t smart enough, apparently, to make decisions about what stays and what goes and what gets added to Scripture. Only the academy of scholars – graduates of the Dallas Theological Seminary btw – are smart enough.

You are now talking about a magisterium! A priesthood!

And on what basis does the academy of scholars make their decisions? Scripture? No! Postmodernism. And not even any postmodernism that you and I studied at school. But some hype they thought up and called postmodernism. That is the ‘tradition’ on which they draw.

With Sola Scriptura out the window in the Emerging Church Movement – which btw is still touted as a Protestant movement – and with scripture being constantly meddled with by the academy of scholars, Emerging Churchers are left with a small-m magisterium, a small-p priesthood, and a small-t tradition.

They are therefore left with a pale simulacra of Catholicism, missing the ‘inspired’ part of ‘inspired writing’ and God being edited right out of the picture. Emerging Churches are being sold a fallible book interpreted by a fallible magisterium according to fallible traditions.

I wonder if this is what Protestants bargained for? I can answer that. I don’t think they bargained for that at all. But then what did folks under Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cromwell, Knox, bargain for? And what did they end up getting? Is the Emerging Church movement not the fruit of the Reformation – politics over theology?

The original denominalization resulting from the Reformation was the emboldening of the ambitious over those who had simpler, kinder ideals. Look no further than the German peasants as Luther’s star was rising.

 

[Palladio]

Oh the Emerging Church Movement is much much more insidious than that!

Some folks do get a little antsy about bits being taken out of the Bible. Those folks are called ‘emotional’ by the pastors promoting ECM and these folks are shamed into silence.

In the links I gave you, I pointed out Dan Wallace’s slippery suggestion that folks in the pew be either isolated or insulated from the academy of scholars.

First of all there is no practical difference between isolating and insulating folks. The upshot is that folks in the pew aren’t smart enough, apparently, to make decisions about what stays and what goes and what gets added to Scripture. Only the academy of scholars – graduates of the Dallas Theological Seminary btw – are smart enough.

You are now talking about a magisterium! A priesthood!

And on what basis does the academy of scholars make their decisions? Scripture? No! Postmodernism. And not even any postmodernism that you and I studied at school. But some hype they thought up and called postmodernism. That is the ‘tradition’ on which they draw.

With Sola Scriptura out the window in the Emerging Church Movement – which btw is still touted as a Protestant movement – and with scripture being constantly meddled with by the academy of scholars, Emerging Churchers are left with a small-m magisterium, a small-p priesthood, and a small-t tradition.

They are therefore left with a pale simulacra of Catholicism, missing the ‘inspired’ part of ‘inspired writing’ and God being edited right out of the picture. Emerging Churches are being sold a fallible book interpreted by a fallible magisterium according to fallible traditions.

I wonder if this is what Protestants bargained for? I can answer that. I don’t think they bargained for that at all. But then what did folks under Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cromwell, Knox, bargain for? And what did they end up getting? Is the Emerging Church movement not the fruit of the Reformation – politics over theology?

The original denominalization resulting from the Reformation was the emboldening of the ambitious over those who had simpler, kinder ideals. Look no further than the German peasants as Luther’s star was rising.

I see what you mean.

You have the patience of a saint with a certain other poster.

I’m just fed up.

I knew that Protestants have–understandably enough, they protest, by definition–a bad habit of Catholic bashing and anti-Catholic propaganda, but to find the worst of it on this website is simply amazing.

My own sister in law (born again) let into us on her understanding of confession just yesterday! I mean, misunderstanding. Born again or baptized Protestant seems to entail some pretty mean methods of unreason and abuse.

I really don’t know how long I can bear to read such free fantasy, illogic, and bad faith against the RCC, but so far I have avoided anything I would need to confess: some standard!

God bless.

 

[Teflon93]

I see what you mean.

You have the patience of a saint with a certain other poster.

I’m just fed up.

I knew that Protestants have–understandably enough, they protest, by definition–a bad habit of Catholic bashing and anti-Catholic propaganda, but to find the worst of it on this website is simply amazing.

My own sister in law (born again) let into us on her understanding of confession just yesterday! I mean, misunderstanding. Born again or baptized Protestant seems to entail some pretty mean methods of unreason and abuse.

I really don’t know how long I can bear to read such free fantasy, illogic, and bad faith against the RCC, but so far I have avoided anything I would need to confess: some standard!

God bless.

Well, you’ve done better than I have in the Confessional regard!

Keep in mind that part of the reason for this Forum is to address the least charitable among non-Catholics. Not everyone who comes here has any Christian charity in them at all; we should expect them to engage in other non-Christian behaviors here as well as a result.

It should make us appreciate the thoughtful and charitable non-Catholics around here all the more!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Palladio:

You have the patience of a saint with a certain other poster.

Whew! I’m framing this and putting it on my wall.

Palladio:

I really don’t know how long I can bear to read such free fantasy, illogic, and bad faith against the RCC, but so far I have avoided anything I would need to confess: some standard!

It is sometimes very hurtful to be exposed to some very competitive and exploitative behaviour. The reason the persistent among us do persist is that for every one impervious poster there are scores of lurkers looking for answers.

And those lurkers do take notes. Since Beckwith swam the Tiber, there has been imho a war in the spirit realm; a lot of jockeying for position, a lot of desperation, a lot of old tapes being replayed. As much as we have been able, some of us have made ourselves available to guide the swimmers.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…It should make us appreciate the thoughtful and charitable non-Catholics around here all the more!

 

[cpayne]

It should make us appreciate the thoughtful and charitable non-Catholics around here all the more!

Well, thank you, but really, I almost am Catholic by now, just a few more months, I think, and I will—

What? What’s that? You weren’t talking about m—

Oh. Okay. Never mind.

 

[Palladio]

Thanks to you and to Teflon, who have noted more than a little doubt and frustration.

Something does seem to be coming to a head in Christendom, and this coincides, roughly, with my own reversion.

But because I have never treated the RCC lightly, and because I have reverted because what She teaches, I am fully convinced, is true, I am struggling with anything less than good manners in regard to Her. I don’t give myself any credit for staying away from Protestant sites, where I could not possibly accede to their proposals, so I have wondered more than a little what on earth grips some of these folks here.

Anyway, you’ve said what.

Thanks.

God bless.

 

[PC_Master]

First off, I’d just like to say that to brand all of Protestantism because of the supposed un-charitability of certain posters (I’ll assume you don’t mean me – though perhaps you do, though I’ve certainly not been hateful about anything I’ve said here.) would be akin to me branding all Roman Catholics based on the actions of a few posters here. I’ve found some that are quite nice to deal with, and others that are downright hateful in their responses.

Likewise, in reality, I’ve found some people who will defend Roman Catholicism to the bitter end, no matter the cost (and no matter how hateful they are in the process). On the other hand, I have a very dear friend (basically, he’s like family) who, though I don’t agree with him on some things, is a devout Roman Catholic who genuinely wants me to believe as he does, and takes the utmost care in explaining things to me when I ask. I choose not to label Roman Catholics as a whole based on either of these examples, but to evaluate each individually, knowing that there are some good, and some rotten, apples in every bunch. I personally know many Protestants (of many denominations) who fit each of those categories.

“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Honestly, if I had that kind of time, I would not have what is normally meant by a life, and the rhetoric I used is perfectly true: not even food for worms. I love it when bad argument asks to be corrected, and flaunts the proposition that it must be true until somebody disproves it. Laughter is the best medicine for that type so here’s a big fat howler:

If all you’re going to do is provide more rhetoric, what’s the point? When I asked for an explanation of the flaws in my posts, I wasn’t be rhetorical. I really do want answers, but you seem unwilling (or unable) to provide them. That’s not very charitable.

Since you agree that Protestantism is splintered, I have made the point I would want to make: any number above one raises fatal doubt, and you know that there are more sects than that, and that they are many of them in flat disagreement with one and another on matters of life and death. I have a thread on the logical consequence of that (God is a prankster), so I’m not going into the sad implications here–…

Woah there man! You took what I said out of context. Yes, I agree that “Protestant” is splintered horribly and at least all but one of those splinters is not right in at least one way (read that carefully before responding). What I said, however, is that all of Christianity is splintered, as is that which is called Catholicism. The EO, ACoTE, CoE, and various others all claim to be descended from the apostolic church, and thus to be the one “orthodox” and “catholic” church.

You’re still grouping Roman Catholic vs. non-Roman-Catholic. You assume that God would be a prankster if he expected you to randomly pick from any one of Protestant denominations (in other words, if he intended for Protestantism to be so splintered), but I think it’s more apt to say that God would be a prankster if he expected someone to randomly pick from any one of many Christian denominations in general. Think about it. If the point of unity is that you can be certain that you’re picking the right thing, then you have a problem even with Catholicism.

Roman Catholics claim they have valid succession from the apostolic church, and that they have the successor of the one leader that God appointed.

Orthodox claim that they have valid succession and that there was no single leader.

The Assyrian Church of the East claims that they have valid succession, and a valid succession from Peter.

All three different. All three claiming to be Catholic. All three in disagreement with each other. Catholicism is splintered. You just pretend it isn’t, or that it doesn’t matter because your particular splinter is the right splinter.

…sad for Protestants mired in the muck of their own leaders’ making and sad for the non-believers who will be stuck in that, too, if they fall for the lottery Protestants are selling tickets for.

I could say the same thing about anything-outside-my-particular-belief-set. But the reality is it isn’t about a lottery and having a clear choice. It’s about “The Roman Catholic Church is right, and everyone else is wrong, and thus is a lottery.”

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Continued…

You then immediately equate that ungodly situation–of denominations, sects, factions–with the one true holy and apostolic church going back directly to Saint Peter: you are not even close to truth here; you are just making it up as you go, insulting Catholics as you do.

And which church is that? EO, RCC, or ACoTE. All claim to be that church (except the former and the latter don’t claim that the See of Rome is vitally important).

You lot broke away in the sixteenth century, broke away from one and another, and do so seemingly continually.

That doesn’t even matter, and it’s rhetoric anyway.

I’ll not even give you credit for trying this monkey shine here. It works only with people ignorant, lazy, and prejudiced.

More rhetoric. What’s the point here? Trying to make sure the lurkers are more drawn to your opinion than to mine? If so, good work. Rhetoric works like that. If, however, your goal was to actually substantiate a point, I’d recommend leaving the rhetoric elsewhere and sticking with facts.

OK! Good! I have denomination = division of doctrine, division of community, division of accountability.

Protestant doctrine – varies somewhat, but each of the major denominational groupings shares most of the same doctrines.
Community – generally divides along doctrinal lines.
Ultimate Accountability – God. Completely unified in this regard, except for perhaps a couple of groups, who recognize an earthly governing authority.

I dont understand your point in saying this, since it is a reiteration of the point I made: they all believe, based on the bible alone, that they each most closely resemble the early Church - but they cant all be right. Wouldnt you agree?

I agree - only one is right. But then, I’ve heard Roman Catholics say you must pray the Rosary every day, and others say you don’t have to pray it at all. This is disagreement, but Roman Catholics simply say it is a minor thing that doesn’t really matter, and so doesn’t constitute the need for another denomination.

The only difference is Protestants draw the line a little higher up. In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, charity.

So when you look to ANOTHER source of information to ADD to the biblical information you find nothing to support any Protestant church’s claim to resembling “the early Church”. IOW it is in looking at history that one scratches their head and says, "Wait a second - the evidence from the *actual *early Church simply doesnt look like the Protestant version of the *alleged *early Church.

That’s nice, but totally untrue. Actually, in my studies of those other sources, I don’t find anything substantiating the major Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas that differ from Protestantism.

I agree totally. I mean, can you imagine ANYONE making that claim? I can’t. But God raises up people to do just that.

Your opinion – not mine. And taking that into consideration, can you see how Protestants (a man-made name to group certain churches) would consider themselves united far more than Roman Catholics consider Protestants to be?

As I said, no system is perfect because the goal of the system (absolute definition of denomination) is undefineable.

Goal: To follow the teachings of God as found in divinely inspired writings and as revealed through the Holy Spirit, in order that we may become closer to God’s desires for us.

But I think you would be surprised of the OSAS people who would say that you need to do penance to, say, “restore” your relationship with God, or to get rewards in Heaven, or that if you dont do it you’re not “truly saved”. I have encountered all of those OSAS variations personally.

And what denominations are these, exactly? I’d really like to know, because this sounds like more rhetoric.

I already did - I was editing my original post as you were responding to it, so go back and reread it!

Noted, and I will do soon…I hope. Working on school stuff now, so I’ll have less time to post.

This isnt logical and logic is about all I have to offer. Are you assuming that all Islamists are united under one “denomination”? That’s not true. I dont know a lot, but I do know there are many denominations in Islam.

Indeed. I was in error on my information, and I really don’t know where I came up with the idea. My apologies.

Actually, that Roman Catholicism is the largest only further emphasizes my point – Broad is the way that leads to destruction. In other words, being the biggest probably isn’t a good thing.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Continued…

Is this supposed to have some meaning for us? Some usefulness? It doesn’t meant anything unless you specify the perspective which you have not done.

The perspectives being used here, in general are…

1. Roman Catholic vs The World. Everything that isn’t in union with Rome is considered heretical in some fashion. Even though many of these groups broke with (again, not from) Roman Catholicism at various points, this somehow doesn’t count as Catholic. Schism only applies when it’s not the Roman Catholic Church we’re talking about.
2. Protestant view. The goal is to be as close to God’s truth as possible. God reveals different things to different people at different times in their lives, all in an effort to bring them closer to his will. There is exactly one truth, and the Holy Spirit exists as an agent to bring us into line with that truth. It’s not about denomination, and being completely in or completely out of the church (the only options available under Roman Catholicism). It’s about no one being perfect, but all undergoing continual effort to understand God’s will more fully.

Easy to say until someone asks you to back up what you are saying with evidence. And that is what I am asking, in full knowledge that if you had had any evidence you would have offered it and been done with it.

Actually, I have not, and will not provide the evidence here, because it would only derail this thread. This thread is about how many Protestant denominations there are. It isn’t about the flaws in Roman Catholic theology. We all obviously disagree on what the truth is (if you consider every aspect of that truth, I’m sure you’ll find no two Christians that agree on every little bit).

Which church has maintained the truth properly (assuming they were supposed to “maintain the truth” at all) doesn’t apply to this thread.

So then what you are left with has to have changed not one jot because God does not change. Now let’s look at the evidence. Has Protestant tradition and scripture changed?

Eh, how about “has Roman Catholic tradition and scripture changed”? Yes, and the incredible number of apparent changes is why many Protestants reject it. But this is better discussed elsewhere.

Scripture: yes. Before 1880 the KJV had the deuteros. Then they ‘disappeared.’ Then they ‘reappeared.’ The Emerging Church Movement is attempting to take even more bits out of the Bible.

The ECM isn’t Protestant by the definitions of most Protestants.

Tradition: yes. Some Protestants believe in the Real Presence, some don’t.

Really…that’s interesting. Which denominations would these be?

In any case, it’s a good thing tradition isn’t a rule of faith.

Red herring. It is irrelevant whether or not the Church anathamized folks or whether folks just took their toys and left the park. Clarity of dogma resulted in folks leaving and inventing their own dogma.

Interestingly, that’s the same reason most Protestant splits occur – clarification of doctrine and dogma. The relevance, however, is that if someone chose to split from or with Rome, the church was not (just prior to the split) united.

If unity means “kick out anyone who disagrees over what you consider to be important”, then yes, you’re united (with yourself). But in that regard, each and every Protestant church is united with itself. That people leave (schism) and start a new church is exactly what you’re faulting Protestantism for! But if it happens to the Roman Catholic church, it’s actually demonstrating the unity of the church? That, folks, is a double-standard.

Also, interestingly, the call to unity is a prayer of Jesus for the apostles, that they may become one as Jesus and God are one. Relevant here is…

John 17:20 (Amplified) Neither for these alone do I pray [it is not for their sake only that I make this request], but also for all those who will ever come to believe in (trust in, cling to, rely on) Me through their word and teaching,
So, it’s God’s will for everyone who comes to trust in Jesus to be united. If this is an organizational unity, clearly, the Roman Catholic Church does not embody this, as there are millions of Orthodox and Protestants who profess (and truly believe) faith in Jesus, and yet, are not united organizationally. Schisms and anathemizing are definitely not in line with this if speaking organizationally, so the Roman Catholic Church isn’t fulfilling God’s will. Neither are the Protestant denominations, but it doesn’t matter any more, because Roman Catholicism is guilty of breaking this unity too.

So, is it an organizational unity (comprised of all those who have faith in Jesus) Jesus was praying for, or was it perhaps something else?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Continued…

You are cherrypicking my post. I added the following:

Not intentionally.

Schismatics, therefore, chose a life which did not include Jesus. Oh, their inventions, their novelties, their terms – but not what Jesus was offering.

In John 6, yes. But Jesus prayer for unity was for those who come to have faith in him, not for the whole world. In other words, he wants Christianity to be united (in some fashion).

Actually it is unity of doctrine and community. Because God’s truth has been preserved in the Catholic Church. The groups who split off did not preserve God’s truth. They invented something which was comfortable to them – the easy way.

Actually, this is unsubstantiated opinion. Each split-off no doubt actually believed they were preserving God’s truth. Luther, at least to some degree, believed that Roman Catholicism was no longer maintaining God’s truth. That’s why schisms of doctrine happen – not because people want something more comfortable. If it were that, then I’d say that having a single earthly authority is ultimately more comfortable than the Protestant way – you can easily know if you’re in-line with God’s will or not. With Protestants, we don’t have such a clear certainty, but since we don’t believe God intended one man to have control such as that, it doesn’t matter.

They are misrepresenting what actually happens.

Don’t think so.

The 3 B’s of Baptist are: Bible, Budget, and Baptism. Somebody has to hold the purse strings. Somebody has to decide what falls within the purvey of ‘Baptist’ and what does not. After all, yall can’t have people venerating the saints at the local church, now kin ye? And yall can’t have people being baptised by dipping their toes in rosewater, now kin ye?

I can only assume that you’re trying to be offensive here, or are at least applying a ridiculous amount of innuendo. The purse strings, in Baptist churches, are collectively held by all members, guided (in the form of advice and recommendations) by officers elected by all the members.

As for who determines what’s Biblical or not – the reason I’m generally Baptist, and not Methodist or Presbyterian, is because I agree more with what Baptists teach than with what Presbyterians teach. However, I’m free to make my own choice. Church organizations are just local independent groups of believers that all agree on important bits of doctrine. Yes, the pastor in a Baptist church typically sets curriculum and preaches as he believes, but when we replace our pastors, we usually go through a search process which allows us to select a minister who agrees with our beliefs.

There are bottom lines among Baptists. Every bottom line is a new denomination.

Feel free to jump in and actually define these at any time.

What people claim and what is true are sometimes different things.

Agreed (this is true for Roman Catholicism too), but can you tell me what the truth actually is for these churches?

So a tradition then.

No. Each individual is free to decide as he or she will, based on the revelation of God to that individual.

Yet as regard magisteria and traditions yall like to say that none exist in Protestantism. It is different for Catholics because we have nothing to hide and therefore hide nothing. We don’t have an elephant in our room.

Show me a Baptist tradition (which is held as a rule of faith) that doesn’t have Biblical support. Actually, we’ll probably have to start another thread if you actually can come up with anything.

Whereas your pastors pretend you don’t have a hierarchy.

Show me the hierarchy. Show me any pastor or Baptist leader (since we seem to be focusing on Baptists) that claims to be infallible in his/her/their rulings. Actually, show me any Protestant leader that does this (there could be one or two, but a vast, vast majority don’t).

Keep in mind that part of the reason for this Forum is to address the least charitable among non-Catholics. Not everyone who comes here has any Christian charity in them at all; we should expect them to engage in other non-Christian behaviors here as well as a result.

If any of the Protestant posters here are considered among the least charitable of Protestants by you, I’d suggest that you consider that you really don’t know Protestants as well as you think you do.

It’s fortunate I don’t judge all Roman Catholics based on some of the posts I’ve seen here, because if I did, I would have an extremely low opinion of Roman Catholicism.

The end…for now.

 

[PhilVaz]

Hey hey hey hey hey

Sorry to interrupt but…you guys paying attention to the James White vs. Steve Ray debate on the stats in the World Christian Encyclopedia? It seems they’re both right!

While the source does refer to “only” 9000 or so denominations as “Protestant” the source also includes 22,000 or so denominations as “Independent” and if you look at the names of some of these "Independents", most of these are Protestant.

So Steve Ray is right if you include 9000+22000 = 31000 or so, and James White is right if you stick with the “Protestants” and ignore the “Independents.” Nobody was lying, nobody was misrepresenting the data, its just the way you read the data. Now…

The same source also does refer to 33000+ total “Christian” denominations, but these are

Catholics (242)
Protestants (about 9000)
Orthodox (700+)
Independents (about 22000)
and “Marginals” (the rest or about 1500)

The “Marginal Christian” groups include JWs, Mormons, pseudo-Christian cults, some Christian science or “mind science” cults or what are called “gnostic” groups. But as we can see, the vast majority (22000+9000) / 33000) * 100.0 ] – about 94% – of these 33000+ are Protestants and Independents (with most of the Indys being Protestants).

Of course this doesn’t cover the bogus way the encyclopedia appears to be counting and separating denominations – by “country” which is how you get 242 (or 238) “denominations” of Roman Catholics. The same counting by country appears to be the case for others. They might have done this to help keep specific statistics by country, but I hardly think the RCC in Canada is a different “denomination” from the RCC in the U.S., etc. If you search the available data online, there is indeed one “Roman Catholic” denomination in the U.S.A. (one Catholic Church).

I’ve tried unsuccessfully to get to USF library twice. It was closed on Saturday (still summer break), and Monday I didn’t get there until around 10 pm, found out they close at 10 pm. Online I thought they stayed open until midnight, but that’s the Tampa campus, not St. Pete. Oh well I’ll get this 2 volume set tomorrow I hope. The pages to check out are the first 20 or so, with pages 16-18 containing the important chart of the totals.

Steve Ray has scanned those in for us.

Phil P

 

[Blinky]

Whoops. I wasn’t saying it is. The response was to the statement that Roman Catholicism is the largest religion in the world. However, that assertion is false. Around 1.1 billion individuals are members of the Roman Catholic Church (actually that number includes some of the non-Roman Catholic denominations too) out of the total 2 billion or so that are in Christianity. Islam has 1.5 billion, so while the whole of Christianity is larger, the Roman Catholic Church in itself is not.

I see. How much larger is the Roman Catholic Church compared with Protestant denominations?

 

[PC_Master]

See my previous responses on this subject. Thanks.

 

[Blinky]

Well, I looked at your previous responses and didn’t find any numbers regarding the sizes of Protestant denominations. Can you please do me a favor and tell me which post(s) you are referring to? Thanks.

 

[Palladio]

You dismiss as rhetoric that Protestantism came into being in the sixteenth century by breaking away once and for all from the RCC. Then you are dismissing as rhetoric the old, obvious, and correct view of Protestant scholars of the Reformation. But then you dismiss whatever is inconvenient to your purpose: facts and logic, common sense definitions… Either you are incredibly dim or you are arguing in bad faith.

You do come off as a huckster who thinks by writing long posts he can write convincing posts: steam rolling. This works only with ignorant, lazy, and prejudiced people, as I have already said, so please do give it a rest.

How paranoid are you to assert that I would care to address people you call lurkers?

If smart and well-intentioned Protestants cannot see that they are caught in an obscene ungodly and man-made Protestant lottery with all the odds stacked against them, time will soon enough disabuse them of their sad and disgusting lot.

Your god is prankster god, worse than any I’ve come across in classical Greece and Rome, in whose name Protestantism comes fast to the great causes of our damnable age: gay marriage and abortion.

May God have mercy on you.

 

[PhilVaz]

Hello, just checking in…Are we bored yet?

The Facts and Stats on the 33,000 Denominations

DONE!

Phil P

 

[Teflon93]

Hey hey hey hey hey

Sorry to interrupt but…you guys paying attention to the James White vs. Steve Ray debate on the stats in the World Christian Encyclopedia? It seems they’re both right!

While the source does refer to “only” 9000 or so denominations as “Protestant” the source also includes 22,000 or so denominations as “Independent” and if you look at the names of some of these "Independents", most of these are Protestant.

So Steve Ray is right if you include 9000+22000 = 31000 or so, and James White is right if you stick with the “Protestants” and ignore the “Independents.” Nobody was lying, nobody was misrepresenting the data, its just the way you read the data. Now…

The same source also does refer to 33000+ total “Christian” denominations, but these are

Catholics (242)
Protestants (about 9000)
Orthodox (700+)
Independents (about 22000)
and “Marginals” (the rest or about 1500)

The “Marginal Christian” groups include JWs, Mormons, pseudo-Christian cults, some Christian science or “mind science” cults or what are called “gnostic” groups. But as we can see, the vast majority (22000+9000) / 33000) * 100.0 ] – about 94% – of these 33000+ are Protestants and Independents (with most of the Indys being Protestants).

Of course this doesn’t cover the bogus way the encyclopedia appears to be counting and separating denominations – by “country” which is how you get 242 (or 238) “denominations” of Roman Catholics. The same counting by country appears to be the case for others. They might have done this to help keep specific statistics by country, but I hardly think the RCC in Canada is a different “denomination” from the RCC in the U.S., etc. If you search the available data online, there is indeed one “Roman Catholic” denomination in the U.S.A. (one Catholic Church).

I’ve tried unsuccessfully to get to USF library twice. It was closed on Saturday (still summer break), and Monday I didn’t get there until around 10 pm, found out they close at 10 pm. Online I thought they stayed open until midnight, but that’s the Tampa campus, not St. Pete. Oh well I’ll get this 2 volume set tomorrow I hope. The pages to check out are the first 20 or so, with pages 16-18 containing the important chart of the totals.

Steve Ray has scanned those in for us.

Phil P

This whole thread really ought to be entitled, “An Inconvenient Truth.”