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.

"What you are looking at is differing worship style..do not be deceived by that."

Who is your bishop? My Catholic neighbor and I have the same bishop. My Methodist neighbor has a bishop and my Lutheran neighbor has a bishop who is not the same person as the Methodists bishop. My Episcopal neighbor has a his own Bishop but my Baptist neighbor has no Bishop and does not want one. My Bible Christian neighbor left the Lutheran church for "pure" Christianity. She would never dream of going back there or of becoming an Episcopal or Methodist.

Catholic Church Chain of command: Jesus Christ, Pope, Bishops, Pastors, Deacons, Lay Ministers, laypeople.

Protestant Demonminations chain of Command, Jesus Christ, .............and then add a totally different chain of command for each denomination. That's not unity and it is not organization. Not like the Catholics have. You guys don't have enough unity to even agree to have bishops at all let alone what bishop to rule, teach and sanctify.

All the Catholics in the Dallas Diocese have the SAME Bishop. All the Catholics in the WORLD have the same POPE. But All the Protestants in Dallas have a mulligan stew of leadership organization, worship style and docterine. I don't know, is there a head Lutheran bishop of all the Lutherans in the world? Bet not!!

Gotcha there! ;O>

<> That makes no sense. "You are rock and upon this rock I wil build my church" if intended to refer to Jesus Himself could not have had a poorer sentence construction. Did Jesus desire to confuse folks?

Nevermind answering...We each believe this means totally diferent things but we are still within Unity according to your earlier post. It is all too confusing for me, so I will just follow the Divinely-constituted authority on Earth.<>

Wrong. In an earlier post I cited the Bonds of Unity one must maintain to remain Catholic. That itself is a teaching of the catholic Church conatined in vatican Two, Canon Law and The Catechism.<>

Well then, why is he still permitted to take communion? Do the priests need instruction from "Catholicguy"?

<> You'll have to ask that priest. <>

<>Sorry....Check back a few posts and you'll see that Old Reggie gave me permission to use any numer I desired. Do you have more authority than Ol' Reggie? If you think you do, prove it using the Bible.<>

What he said was: "Make up any stupid number you wish. A redicululous number is just that. Make yourself happy." Hey, I agree with that. You can lie all you want.<>

I still don't see where Ol' Reggie said that was lying, but I frequently don't see within the text of passage things protestants do see while I do see within certain passages things protestants don't see see so I am not too concerned.<>

<> It makes my job easier. If you want to count tiny CATHOLIC variations as Protestant denominations, knock yourself out

<> I have no desire to knock myself out nor do I call the severing of a Bond of Unity "catholic variation" but I have learned that Catholic Definitions aren't applicable for certain opponents of Catholicism so I don't worry myself about that either. Life is too short for that<>

One could even try to answer the question.

I would try if I cared, but I don't.

You care enough to come in here and cast your asparagus at me and my co-religionists. But you don't care enough to engage in a thoughtful, logical debate. Typical.

How sad it is that there is absolutely no non-Catholic person who can answer this simple question. If I give you power of attorney and you sell my house, did "you" sell my house or did "I?" If I say I did, am I wrong? If I say you did, am I wrong?

Personally, I have never understood the significance of why this topic even matters. It is obvious why there are so many denominations. People go to the bible to find what THEY want it to say, instead of to find what God actually says. Very few people can handle the cold hard truth. Catholics included. Look at all the different beliefs Catholics come up with as to what the RC actually teaches, all derived from the catechism.

Matt. 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in therat: Beause strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Becky

Then I draw a comparison about giving the power of attorney and asked you 4 or 5 times who the "seller" is in the situation. You do not answer.

You accuse me of not answering your question and you call me ignorant. I will repost my answer from a previous post (#109) showing that you are, in fact, not telling the truth, or failing to read written words.

Had God given Catholic priests "power of attorney" to act in His place, I would agree that priests could forgive sins for Him (by Him, through Him, with Him, under Him, whatever preposition you choose).

I believe that God in His "omniscience" would realize that if he were so careless as to share his "omnipotence" (His power to forgive sins) with sinful men, that those men would misuse His omnipotence to entice little boys.

Look at all the different beliefs Catholics come up with as to what the RC actually teaches, all derived from the catechism.

I hardly think the Catechism has much to do with it. While it is romantic to think of Catholics worldwide studying the Catechism and deriving beliefs from it, in reality most people believe what they believe because someone taught it to them.

People who were taught erroneous things, believe erroneous things. And much like people believe what they want to believe is "in the Bible," these errant Catholics may believe their beliefs are authentic. But the actual Catechism is very clear.

Did you have any particular "all the different beliefs Catholics come up with" that you had in mind?

Then I draw a comparison about giving the power of attorney and asked you 4 or 5 times who the "seller" is in the situation. You do not answer.

Bring it on.

This is not an answer to my question. For the 6th or 7th time, and I invite any non-Catholic who feels they are intellectually honest to answer, if I give you the power of attorney and you then sell my house, did "you" sell the house or did "I?" If I say I sold it am I wrong? If you say you sold it, are you wrong? Do we disagree, or are we both telling a facet of the truth?

Anybody? Buehler?

If you recall, you said that everyday Catholics disagree with the Catechism answer. That somehow saying God forgives sins, and saying the priest has the power to forgive sins in God's name is a "disagreement." Will you retract that now?

Ah yes. Don't forget to mention the scandal. I am glad you are perfect. Run along, troll.

No, I was just hoping someone could tell me what the significances of worrying about how many denominations there are is?. It seems to be something that comes up very frequently when a "protestant" discusses religion with a catholic. I could be wrong, but I always get the impression that the this fact has some significance in the eyes of catholics. What does it prove, to a catholic?

most people believe what they believe because someone taught it to them.

That is my point, very few even KNOW what the bible ACTUALLY says, (the people on these threads are not typical:), so it is understandable there are so many denominations, but it doesn't prove anything.

Becky

Oh goody...there are only 8,000 protestant "popes" instead of 25,000. Of course each has its own unique "take" on scripture interpretation...of course each one claims to be THE correct interpretation.

You have little understanding of Christianity outside of your walls. The Catholic church "claims to be THE correct interpretation", mine DOES NOT. I am in the Assembly of God. We (Me, my Pastor and my Denomination) claim that we are doing our best at understanding Gods unerring word. We rely on His Holy Spirit and our frail human minds to understand as best we can.

I do not claim to be in the "one, true church", you do. My Church does not claim to the only spolesman for God, yours does. I do not claim that to be saved you must agree with me, you do.

You are wrong in attributing the same kind of religious arrogance found in Catholicism to all other denominations.

You bring up good points. Governance of all Catholic parishes (of ALL RITES) is subject to approval/veto of both the local bishop and then also the pope. The local parish council is made of lay people - and its role is to advise the pastor - but the pastor is never bound by the council - NEVER. Governance of non-Catholic churches??

A Catholic parish does not hire its own pastor - the pastor is assigned by the bishop. Non-Catholics??

Bishops are also appointed by the pope - not chosen by the lay people or priests or bishops. Non-Catholics???

And no parish can sell or buy property without approval from the bishop and from Rome. Non-Catholics???

No parish can be established or be closed without permission from the bishop and from Rome. Non-Catholics???

Records of EVERY baptism, first communion, confirmation, wedding, funeral and wedding MUST be submitted to the diocese. Non-Catholics???

No one can be ordained without approval of the pope. Non-Catholics?

And on and on.

You surely will coment on how imperfectly all of this governance is handled. No Catholic will claim the Church is governed perfectly - and I am sure no non-Catholic will claim his denomination is governed perfectly. But the fact remains: Catholics have a unity - imperfect as it is - that non-Catholics don't even desire or pretend to have.

Again, I am baffled that this is even being debated. I think the rub is that this obvious - though imperfect -unity of the Catholic Church is something that we can all see as desirable. "That all may be one" is one of Christ's last expressed prayers.

RnMom - I am at home at any Catholic Mass, regardless of the rite. You are getting carried away. At my law school they say the post-Vatican II Mass in Latin and I love it. I belong to a Charismatic parish and love it. I sometimes attend the older Tridentine Latin Mass and love it. It is the same reality that is being celebrated. And each priest is subject to the same pope and required to be faithful to the same doctrines.

It is just not so for the myriad non-Catholic dnominations. I understand that you may wish it were so - it is a beautiful thing.

Ah yes. Don't forget to mention the scandal. I am glad you are perfect. Run along, troll.

This is the mindset the allowed priests to molest little boys. I disagree. There is a lot of territory between being perfect and being a man molesting little boys.

I fault the Catholic laity as much or more than the Catholic bureaucracy in enabling perverts to molest little boys under their approving eyes. "Everyday Catholics" treat the priest as God. Empower him with an arrogance that men cannot handle. "Everyday Catholics" tell him that they believe he can perform a miracle every Mass.

Many Catholic parents who realized that this was happening to their children failed to report it to the police because "the priest and the Church are God's representative. We can't do anything to hurt God's representative."

I actually saw a quote from a Catholic after the scandal broke that summed up the entire cause of the problem. It went like this, "I can't believe our priest would do such a thing, it is like Christ himself did it!" BARF ALERT!

The Catholic laity built these men up as gods, and then sacrificed their own children to them.

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.