Posted on 09/24/2002 7:54:39 PM PDT by RnMomof7
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.
This quote caught my eye.
As one who follows their respective careers, I would point out that Matatics and Hahn were best friends at (protestant) Seminary, of course. Just for my personal benefit, has anyone yet figured out whether or not Gerry Matatics is a Communicant Conservative Roman Catholic, or a Schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist Catholic?
Which almost begs the (rhetorical) question: Are you a Sedevacantist schismatic when you say that you are, or when the rest of "Conservative Catholicism" says that you are??
I ask partly out of academic interest. I have read both Hahn and Matatics, and as a debater, Matatics is by far the superior Apologist (mind you, I speak only my own personal opinion, as a former scholastic and collegiate Debater of some minor accomplishment).
I have read plenty of the writings of both Matatics and Hahn, and transcripts of each; and I know the sort of preparation which goes into a formal Debate. If I were, for some unfathomable reason, compelled to debate Dr. Scott Hahn on a specific and pre-defined doctrinal proposition (anyone wanna offer me an extended paid vacation and clear it with my employer?), I think that I could adequately prepare myself given the space of about two weeks. I would certainly need to call upon the input of such professional Presbyterian apologists as Steve Wilkins, Brian Abshire, Steve Schlissel, and of course the indefatigable Tristan Emmanuel (sigh -- some Presbyterians are predestinated to get the COOLEST names); I'd be doing myself a dis-service if I did not call on Baptist Apologists James White and Richard Bennett.
And I am not so arrogant as to deny the real possibility that Hahn would wipe the floor with my amateur hide!!
But on the other hand, I've read Hahn's stuff. His arguments are too rote. His thinking is too hidebound. I'm reminded of some advice my collegiate Debate Coach once gave me in before a round with a (seeming) Debate Juggernaut team from another school -- "They don't know anything they're not prepped for. They can't think on their feet. Get them off their blocs (that's "debate lingo" for taking someone outside the box of their pre-formatted Arguments) and they will FOLD like a weak bluff."
That's the way that Scott Hahn's arguments read -- to me, anyway. Too rote. Too hidebound. Give me two weeks prep-time with the best minds in Protestant Apologia, and I am not the most incompetent Debater around. I think I could at least "go the distance".
But Matatics?? What, are you freakin' kidding me? I've read Matatics. The guy is not only knowledgeably erudite, he is intellectually sharp -- keen as a bloody straight-razor. He's both as thoughtful in his preparation, as he is innovative in his composition and presentation -- a ruthless combination. Two weeks? Gee, thanks but no thanks. Two weeks and I'm a lamb to the slaughter. Two months would be scarcely enough.
But of course, this (entirely-hypothetical) scenario is entirely MOOT if the best Mind in Roman Catholic apologetics alive today (Gerry Matatics, in only-my-own-personal-opinion) is NOT EVEN A ROMAN CATHOLIC but rather a schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist.
So, I know that the Roman Catholic Church has a LOT on its plate these days, but once you guys figure out whether or not so-called Roman Catholics like FReeper "Theresa" (who basically affirm that modern Jewish Pharisees can go to their graves blaspheming Jesus Christ and yet be saved) represent the "Truth of Rome", can somebody get back to me and tell me whether or not Gerry Matatics is still a communicant and faithful Roman Catholic?
I personally think that he's one of the best "Roman Catholic" apologists in the world (if not the best), but then Karl Keating tells me that Matatics is not even a Roman Catholic at all -- but rather an SSPX Sedevacantist Schismatic.
It's all very confusing.
All that said, I've another observation to make -- rather a funny one. Well, "funny" in the sense of black humor, at least.
When one reads the Roman Catholic Apologia-by-Testimonial book "Surprised by Truth", it's like reading a Codex of the Roman Front Line of public Apologetics in the World today.
And what does one find, when one studies the roster of modern Roman Apologists? Let us see...
What does one find when one studies the modern codex of Roman apologia? What "distinguishing characteristic" unites the vast bulk of Public Roman Apologists in the world today?
Every single one of 'em.
Granted, "Surprised" does throw in one well-known Apologist Roman ex-Baptist (Tim Staples), as well as one Ex-Jew (in Calvinist circles, we'd call him a completed Jew -- if he were Calvinist, that is) and one ex-Evangelical "Jesus Freak", but eight out of eleven testimonial cases are former Calvinist Continental Reformed and/or Calvinist Presbyterians. (You might add "cradle-Catholic" Karl Keating as a prominent modern public Catholic Apologist, but of course Keating has said he is not a good public debater and refuses public debates).
Some of these lapsed Presbyterians repudiate their Calvinism; others (such as James Akin, "Tiptoe through the TULIPS") seek to find a place for their Calvinism within the Roman Thomist-Augustinian tradition ("a double-minded man"??).
But nonetheless, essentially the Entire Front Line of Roman Apologetics in the Public Forum of the world today are basically a gaggle also-ran Presbyterians.
I'm pretty sure that one of us should be embarassed by this, Polycarp....
...but I'm honestly not sure which -- you or me!! (lol)
But, methinks it's an interesting tidbit.
Just grist for the mill.... best, OP.
Then Jesus was an also-ran Jewish carpenter from Nazareth...I'm not loosing sleep over it, OP.
Matatics is good, but he ain't Jesus.
I was just making an observation about the lineage of modern Roman Apologists. (Well, if they even ARE Roman, that is -- I am genuinely curious about Matatics' communicant status, I will admit, given my appreciation for his talent if nothing else). But it was intended humorously, Polycarp, not seriously (there are, of course, Roman Apologists from non-presbyterian backgrounds... they just are not the Roman "Majors").
But, if you want to get into an Argument of Jesus versus the Pharisees -- as echoed in the Reformers versus Rome, p'raps? -- that's an argument I'm more than willing to get into.
Just business, it is.
BUT, it was not my intent at the moment... I was just making an observation.
I know, OP. It was a good point. No problem here.
Much obliged!!
As you know, I think that so-called "Cal-Minians" are basically Pelagian Heretics who like to say "nice words" about "God's Sovereignty", but don't really mean it.
As a result, finding a genuine Reformation Amyrauldian in a pile of disingenuous Dallas Theological Cal-Minians is like finding a needle in a haystack.
However, I think you a genuine Amyrauldian. As a Five-Pointer myself, I think you genuinely wrong, of course; but I do think you to be genuine.
I may (and do) disagree with you; but I esteem you to be that "Amyrauldian needle" in a stack of DTS Cal-Minian stubble.
So, I thank you for the compliment!!
best, op
Okay, my bad. I confess that I was hasty in assuming your ill-temper; I thought maybe you were having a bad night with the "Everything is Catholic!!" gang like "Theresa" and perhaps you thought that I was being opportunist for making fun of them. (although frankly I do reserve the right to make fun of them.)
I would point out that if (as I am sure you personally believe) in any way the journey of these Lapsed Presbyterians to their so-called "Rome Sweet Home" were supposed to be any kind of alleged valid pilgrimage, it is certainly NOT so that Modernist Heretics would make of their "Rome Sweet Home" a mere non-salvific Shriner's Club with no real claims to "Absolute Truth".
But I should not have assumed any kind of ill-temper in your response.
Mea maxima Culpa. :-(
best, op
I have never taken a survey...In the Evangelical circles abortion is viewed as it is in the RC church
There are liberal mainsteam churchs that take various positions ..including talking out of both sides of their mouths ...
Most Bible based "fundamental "churchs would walk the pro life picket lines with Catholics
Now we must allow for hypocrisy...I have heard that almost 1/2 the abortions preformed are done on Catholic girls....So the bottom line is at the end of the day ...a heart matter
Ochhhhhhhhh
LOL!!
Oh great... You're "not familiar with Matatics"?
Good grief, Dr.J -- Next you'll be telling me that you are not familiar with Miyamoto Musashi, the greatest Swordsman who ever walked the face of the Earth.
I don't pretend to believe that Musashi was Christian (in fact, according to the Providence of Him who works all things according to the Good Pleasure of His will, God permitted Musashi to single-handedly annihilate the Christian daimyos of Shimawara in 1638, and thereby bind Japan over unto 300 years of spiritual darkness)...
...and I don't necessarily "assume" that Gerry Matatics is a Saved, Regenerate Christian either. I don't deny his Christianity, but I don't assume it either. "He who Perserveres to the End, he shall be Saved" (Matthew 24:13) -- and I frankly don't regard the Roman Catholic Church as the best vessel of Matatic's perseverance, if at all.
But if Roman Apologetics does have a latter-day Miyamoto Musashi in its ranks (that is, assuming that Apostate Roman Church is still "christian" in any sense of the word), I personally adjudge that Swordsman to be Gerry Matatics... assuming that the "Modernist" Catholic Heretics have not already extirpated Matatics from the Roman Church!! (I ain't exactly "clear" on this point)
However, for what it's worth, here is the link:
Note: I DO NOT recommend this link for the spiritually naive, nor the theological novice. And I have two pieces of Advice:
But all in all, I will simply say to True Christians within Rome: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plaques." Rev. 18:4
best, op
A reference???
What, a "reference" from a washed-up ex-MetalHead from the wrong side of the tracks, just doing the best I can to make good... "as God gives me the Light to see that Duty" (with apologies to the blessed Dougie Mac, may he rest in Heaven)?
Not entirely sure you'd want my "reference", brother;
Me, I just call 'em as I see 'em. (grin)
best, op
News flash for Jerry..I am MANY like me have left the "mother church" after studing the word of God...
Choice..Word of God
or
Word of Jerry
Ummmmmmmmmmmm may the Wheat think on that a bit?
I had a Presbyterian pastor in my old neighborhood who was listening to Karl Keating tapes. When I asked him how he would counter Keatings arguments, he was lost for words. Is it possible that in seminary they spend too much time studying the writings of Calvin and Luther, both of whom were never able to shake off a lot of RCC theology but incorporated i into their own.
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.