30,000 Protestant Denominations?

Due to popular request and to the ongoing distortion of figures from uninformed Roman Catholic apologists writing on this issue, I am posting the following excerpt from my forthcoming book, Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002). ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.

When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?

I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.

I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.

First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.

Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).

No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.

In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.

However Barrett has defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.

As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.

Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).

In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.

If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition). In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.

Christ, the "living Stone", (285) thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church.

Reggie, no one is arguing that every reference to rock in the Bible is referring to Peter. Talk about strawmen!

What about the above is unclear to you? Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. And the Church is "built on Peter."

According to Scripture there is only one Rock upon which the Church is built.

You spelled "Reggie" wrong. According to Reggie, there is only....

We know from history that if this was Jesus changing Peter's name back to Simon that Jesus failed miserably in getting his point across.

When you were very little your nose was always running and your folks called you "Snot Nose", "Snot" for short. Your siblings and acquaintenances picked up on this and you became known as "Snot". As the years went by your folks didn't think "Snot" was appropriate and began calling you "David" again. Your siblings and acquaintenances never changed however and call you "Snot" to this very day. Which is your real name?

"Peter" was a nickname and his contempories continued to call him by that name (with the exception of Paul who referred to him as Cephas). His birth name was Simon and that is the name Jesus used the last time recorded in Scripture. If Jesus meant "Peter" you may be certain he would have said "Peter"!

Your imagination that Jesus might have spoken to him subsequently and might have, once again, called him "Peter" is just another of your smokescreens.

When you were very little your nose was always running and your folks called you "Snot Nose", "Snot" for short. Your siblings and acquaintenances picked up on this and you became known as "Snot". As the years went by your folks didn't think "Snot" was appropriate and began calling you "David" again. Your siblings and acquaintenances never changed however and call you "Snot" to this very day. Which is your real name?

Typical that you would draw a poor analogy. Equating the Lord calling Simon "Peter," and choosing him to lead His Church with a bunch of kids giving someone a nickname is beyond the pale.

"Peter" was a nickname and his contempories continued to call him by that name (with the exception of Paul who referred to him as Cephas). His birth name was Simon and that is the name Jesus used the last time recorded in Scripture. If Jesus meant "Peter" you may be certain he would have said "Peter"!

Earth to Reggie! "Cephas" is Aramaic for "Peter." There is no conflict.

Peter was Simon's new name, Jesus gave it to him, and everyone used it. History records such, Scripture contains a Book of Peter. Only Reggie thinks otherwise.

Your imagination that Jesus might have spoken to him subsequently and might have, once again, called him "Peter" is just another of your smokescreens.

Your imagination that the "last" conversation recorded in Scripture was the last conversation to occur, and that Jesus changed His mind about re-naming Peter are a smokescreen. You'd do better off arguing that Peter means "firstling."

What you have here, then, are "everday Catholics" who are either (charitably) ill-taught or (uncharitably) heretical.

Who taught them? This is an admission that either the RCC is not doing it's job or the teachings are unbelievable.

You are believing in the fantasy that there is one and only one belief on everything within the RC church. This is a myth and only the ultra-myopic could believe it. Second, the church is THE PEOPLE, not the hierarchy. So to say that "the Church" (meaning the RC church in your parlance) believes... is to try to frame an argument in order to get the end result, not based on facts or the Scriptural model. It is therefore, not true to say that there is one belief or unity on any issue within the RCC.

What you have here, then, are "everday Catholics" who are either (charitably) ill-taught or (uncharitably) heretical.

Who taught them? This is an admission that either the RCC is not doing it's job or the teachings are unbelievable.

We've said many times that the Church has done a horrible job teaching the Faith in the last generation or so.

People who consciously choose not to believe certain things often do so becuase the teachign is difficult.

You are believing in the fantasy that there is one and only one belief on everything within the RC church. This is a myth and only the ultra-myopic could believe it.

Things that have been settled definitely are in this collection of teachings that we call the Catechism. There are real words in there, teaching real beliefs. Perhaps I need glasses, but I am not hallucinating.

Second, the church is THE PEOPLE, not the hierarchy. So to say that "the Church" (meaning the RC church in your parlance) believes... is to try to frame an argument in order to get the end result, not based on facts or the Scriptural model. It is therefore, not true to say that there is one belief or unity on any issue within the RCC.

If you consider the mass of people who call themselves Catholic to be the only source for beliefs, then you are correct.

Fortunately we have a hierarchy and a collection of teachings which have been handed down. They exist. Quiz me, and I will show you. There are certainly dissidents and ignorant folks. That doesn't make the official teachings in the Catechism disappear.

If you consider the mass of people who call themselves Catholic to be the only source for beliefs, then you are correct.

No, you miss the point. The "masses" as you call them, ARE THE CHURCH, so to find out what the RCC really believes, they are the true source, not what is written anywhere else. Like it or not that's the way it is, and I know the answer to that one.

Scripture: "Simon, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

"This rock" is even more specific than "the rock".

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify!

Your attempt to have this sentence mean various things merely points out how important it is that God established a Church that has been given the Spiritual gift to interpret Scripture authoritatively. Thus each man cannot claim his version is in Spired and thus - as Protestants so frequently explain to me is their belief.

Your siblings and acquaintenances never changed however and call you "Snot" to this very day. Which is your real name?

Interesting argument Reg. But it's phrased wrong.

If the word of God continued to call you "Snot" in writtings made a hundred years after your name was "changed" back... I would question whether it had ever, in fact, "changed" back at all.

That is, unless I doubted the authority of Scripture (which uses Cephas/Kephas and Peter long after any supposed "change"). Do you suddenly doubt it?

I have an early copy of the KJV that does not always read the same as the one you probably have. One obvious difference is that it has a few more books than yours does.

Actually, some contemporary editions of the KJV contain the apocrypha - the extra books and passages. Anglo-Catholics, who translated the KJV, follow the Roman canon.

That's a new one. The way Catholics often talk about Sola Scriptuara may not always match up with how Protestants now claim they think about the subject. But we certainly didn't make the term up.

Interesting. Seriously, I don't remember ever hearing the term "sola scriptura" in Church, or in any discussions - except with Romanists. Can anyone shed some light onto the origin of the term?

Back to the original thrust of this thread ...

I believe the article does a good job of debunking the idea that there are 25,000 Protestant denomination.

However, even taking the "8,196-denominations" figure - so what? (As the article suggests.)
Many evangelical and fundamentalist churches, including some of the largest congregations, are truly independent and non-denominational. That is, they do not belong to any denomination, convention, or association of churches. This does not mean that they believe that they are the only "true" church, or that they do not have fellowship and cooperation with other churches. It does not mean that they have devised their own unique doctrine. It does mean that they accept no earthly authority on doctrine, although they do consider and study the teachings and expositions of others.
Should these churches be considered as there own separate denominations?
There are many other churches which are "denominational", but independent. They have formally (and voluntarily) joined in a group under a common name - but they, as well, accept no earthly authority on doctrine. The individual congregations are not subject to any denominational authority, and are free to withdraw from the denomination at any time.

I believe that the remarkable thing is that these churches, while having some doctrinal differences (sometimes with heated disputes), generally agree on core issues. This is not ararchy - it is the result of the recognition of the same King by all.

The following is a typical statement of the core beliefs of any of the 8,000 - 30,000 Protestant denominations and non-denominational churches.

It is taken from the on-line Articles of Faith of the Brethren in Christ Church (http://www.nazarene.org/gensec/we_believe.html)

We believe ...
1. In one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.
3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore, inclined to evil, and that continually.
4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost.
5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.
6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth, and also to the entire sanctification of believers.
8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.