Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #153

It’s not 33,000 Protestant Denominations, But Millions

09/18/2010 – James Swan

There seems to be a new conversion story every day of a lost Protestant finding his way across the Tiber. Based on these testimonies, one may be tempted to think the Roman church is growing while Protestant churches are dwindling. Haven’t Rome’s defenders been doing such a stellar job with apologetics, so that the conversions are coming fast and furious? Shouldn’t the number of Protestant churches therefore be going down?

According to one of Rome’s apologists, the opposite is true. There has been an increase in Protestant church bodies. It no longer is 33,000 Protestant denominations. John Martignoni says there are now millions:

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and the main reason for this is sola scriptura. Now, I admit that my "experiences" constitute anecdotal evidence, but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the notion that my anecdotal evidence is not indicative of a much more widespread phenomenon. And, for clarity’s sake, I define a Protestant denomination as a religious unit of one or more persons that has: 1) A particular set of beliefs on matters of faith and morals, which may or may not be unique to that group; and 2) Has its own structure of authority that ultimately answers to no human being outside of the denomination.  [From "Apologetics for the Masses," Issue #151]

John’s statistical conclusions come from his use and gathering of "anecdotal evidence." He’s delved into his wealth of subjective experience and arrived at a conclusion about reality. That’s quite a rigorous apologetic presentation, similar to a Mormon missionary arguing from a burning in the bosom. 
 
Aside from the fact that his estimate of millions of Protestant denominations has no real evidence to back it up, there are a few other problems with his burning in the bosom apologetic conclusions. His subjective feelings have informed him that sola scriptura is the culprit. This reminds me of someone who blames a situation on one idea or a particular group of people at the expense of other factors that should figure into an equation. Secondly, his feelings don’t seem to be moved when it comes to evaluating divisions within Romanism. Is sola scriptura the culprit for that as well? The irony is that this very statement from Mr. Martignoni was not written in response to a Protestant, but to Roman Catholics stating the 33,000 denominations argument should be abandoned. That is, Martignoni’s is at odds with the conclusions of another Romanist.  It’s one Romanist opinion against another. Perhaps sola scriptura is responsible for this as well? No, Romanists are allowed to disagree with each other simply because they say they say they are able to do so.
 
When it comes right down to it, Roman Catholic apologists like Martignoni suffer from gross double standards in their methodology. Many of their arguments and conclusions stem from their own subjective feelings and private interpretations of Romanism and the Bible. They don’t even begin to point their same arguments back on their own worldview to see how consistent they are.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

James Swan:

There seems to be a new conversion story every day of a lost Protestant finding his way across the Tiber. Based on these testimonies, one may be tempted to think the Roman church is growing while Protestant churches are dwindling. Haven’t Rome’s defenders been doing such a stellar job with apologetics, so that the conversions are coming fast and furious? Shouldn’t the number of Protestant churches therefore be going down?

According to one of Rome’s apologists, the opposite is true. There has been an increase in Protestant church bodies. It no longer is 33,000 Protestant denominations. John Martignoni says there are now millions:

"There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and the main reason for this is sola scriptura. Now, I admit that my "experiences" constitute anecdotal evidence, but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the notion that my anecdotal evidence is not indicative of a much more widespread phenomenon. And, for clarity’s sake, I define a Protestant denomination as a religious unit of one or more persons that has: 1) A particular set of beliefs on matters of faith and morals, which may or may not be unique to that group; and 2) Has its own structure of authority that ultimately answers to no human being outside of the denomination." [From "Apologetics for the Masses," Issue #151]

John Martignoni:

Mr. Swan is, essentially, contending that the number of denominations has to be decreasing if the number of Protestants is decreasing, and he tries to make Catholic ignorant savant John Martignoni look foolish for saying otherwise (even though I have never said the number of Protestants is decreasing – it might be, but I haven’t seen any statistics on that so have not commented on it).  Well, his argument seems reasonable at first, as does much of Protestantism, but upon closer examination, the logic just doesn’t hold up, as with much of Protestantism. 

So, can the number of Protestant denominations ("churches") increase even if the number of Protestants is decreasing?  Well, let’s look at an example and see: Let’s say there are 100 denominations with 100,000 total Protestants in them.  So, the average size of a denomination is 1000 Protestants.  Now, let’s say the average size of a denomination decreases, which is the essence of my contention.  I am contending that the denominations are, for all intents and purposes, breaking apart to the extent that in the long run there will be one denomination for each individual, or at least, for each family.  Well, if the average size of a denomination decreases, can there be fewer people, yet more denominations?  James Swan’s logic says, "No, there can’t be."  Well, let’s see.  Let’s drop the average size of our denomination down to 100 people and let’s quadruple the number of denominations.  Which means we now have 400 hundred denominations, but only 40,000 Protestants.  So, the number of Protestants decreased, but the number of denominations increased.  But, that’s not possible according to Mr. Swan’s logic.  So, that must mean that Mr. Swan’s logic isn’t as logical as it could be.

Which means his attempt to "logically" refute my contention, such as it was, falls just a bit short. 

James Swan:

John’s statistical conclusions come from his use and gathering of "anecdotal evidence." He’s delved into his wealth of subjective experience and arrived at a conclusion about reality. That’s quite a rigorous apologetic presentation, similar to a Mormon missionary arguing from a burning in the bosom.  

John Martignoni:

It’s amazing how he starts off talking about my "statistical conclusions" and then quickly translates that into the equivalent of a Mormon missionary’s "burning in the bosom," as if this was a completely subjective conclusion on my part. My contention that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of de facto Protestant denominations – each Sola Scriptura devotee who believes they have the authority to decide what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine based on their own personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture essentially acting as Pope, Pastor, and theologian for their own private denomination – is indeed based on statistical conclusions.  My contention is not based on what I "feel," it is based on what I have observed, which his readers would have known if they took the time to read my newsletter.

Anyway, as I mentioned in my newsletter, I have dealt with literally hundreds, possibly more than a thousand by now, of Protestants in the last 15 years or so.  And, I based my contention on my observations of what a number of them have said and written to me.  Comments along the lines of: "Well, I attend a particular church/denomination, but I’m not a member of that church/denomination.  I just go there because that Pastor comes closest to what I believe of all the Pastors from the various churches I’ve attended."  In other words, they are a denomination within a denomination.  They are an authority unto themselves.  Going to a particular church because that Pastor comes closest to what they have deemed to be true, based on their private, fallible interpretation of the Bible.  They are, in essence, Pope, Pastor, and theologian for their own private denomination.

Now, not all of the Protestants I have dealt with have said something like that, it’s only been a small percentage – two or three dozen out of several hundred (although, this particular topic usually does not come up when I talk with Protestants, so the percentage could actually be much higher).  So, what I did was take that percentage of my sample and extrapolate it to the Protestant population as a whole.  Thus, I came up with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations.  Is that equivalent to a "burning in my bosom," a purely subjective hunch or intuition?  Mr. Swan seems to think so, but it is far from it, Mr. Swan.  It is indeed a statistical conclusion.  It is an extrapolation based on observable data.   Is that the equivalent of a "burning in the bosom?"  No, it is actually much like the process used in all of the polling data we hear about ad nauseum on the news. 

To get a poll that is considered statistically strong, you need to talk to somewhere around 1024 or 1064 people, or some such number in that general area.  I cannot say with certainty how many Protestants I have talked to over the past 12-15 years, but it is in that general area – maybe a little bit lower, but possibly even a little bit higher.  So, the number of observations in my data is fairly significant, from a statistical standpoint.  Which means my contention about the number of Protestant denominations can in no way be described as resulting from a "burning in my bosom."  As I mentioned in my newsletter, I was shocked when I first encountered this phenomenon.  It was not something that I dreamed up, it was something I observed.  And, please note, it is not something that Mr. Swan actually offers any evidence to contradict.  In fact, I am willing to bet that Mr. Swan is a de facto denomination unto himself.

I will admit, though, to making a mistake in my estimation.  When I extrapolated from my observations, I was trying to be exceedingly conservative in my estimate, so I included those who attended a particular denomination even though they were not members of that denomination, but I excluded from my calculations all of the Protestants who had told me that they don’t need any church.  All they need is their Bible and that’s it.  Well, I did not count those folks in the percentage of denominations, but I should have because they are indeed the very people I am talking about as being denominations unto themselves.  So, I should have added another couple dozen or so folks to calculate the percentage I came up with, which would actually raise my estimated number of de facto Protestant denominations. 

And, I will admit that a potential weakness in my statistical estimation is that the observations were not completely random in nature.  They are mostly based on people who have responded to something I have said on a CD, in this newsletter, in a live talk, or on the radio.  So, that is indeed a weakness in my calculations, but I am more than willing to admit that my analysis is not infallible.  If only James Swan would admit that his interpretations of Scripture are not infallible.

Also, I find it almost funny, if it wasn’t actually sad, that Mr. Swan is so quick to ridicule me for a conclusion arrived at by what he perceives as a "burning in the bosom," when I have heard I don’t know how many times from Protestants that they "know" the canon of Scripture – which books should and should not be considered inspired Scripture – based on how reading a particular book of Scripture makes them "feel."   (They do this to avoid the Catholic argument that the only way they know what the canon of Scripture is because of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.)  When they read this or that book, they can "feel" the Holy Spirit moving.  They can "feel" God talking to them.  "Burning in the bosom."  Where do you think Mormons got this "burning in the bosom" nonsense from?  It wasn’t from Catholics, it was from Protestants.  Was Joseph Smith’s family Catholic?  No, they were Protestant.

And one other point in regard to this "burning in the bosom" phenomenon, what does James Swan base every single one of his doctrinal beliefs on?  Essentially, he bases them on a "burning in his bosom."  He bases his doctrinal beliefs on his own, personal, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations of Scripture.  Where is the objectivity in that, Mr. Swan?  Talk about double standards?!

James Swan:

Aside from the fact that his estimate of millions of Protestant denominations has no real evidence to back it up, there are a few other problems with his burning in the bosom apologetic conclusions. His subjective feelings have informed him that sola scriptura is the culprit. This reminds me of someone who blames a situation on one idea or a particular group of people at the expense of other factors that should figure into an equation. Secondly, his feelings don’t seem to be moved when it comes to evaluating divisions within Romanism. Is sola scriptura the culprit for that as well? The irony is that this very statement from Mr. Martignoni was not written in response to a Protestant, but to Roman Catholics stating the 33,000 denominations argument should be abandoned. That is, Martignoni’s is at odds with the conclusions of another Romanist.  It’s one Romanist opinion against another. Perhaps sola scriptura is responsible for this as well? No, Romanists are allowed to disagree with each other simply because they say they say they are able to do so. 

John Martignoni:

Again he uses the "burning in the bosom" phrase to ridicule, rather than actually answer my argument.  And, it is not my "subjective feelings" that tell me Sola Scriptura is the culprit for all the divisions within Protestantism.  That contention is, again, based on my observations.  If someone tells you that they don’t need a church all they need is their Bible (Sola Scriptura), or that they attend a particular church because that pastor comes closest to what they believe (based on their interpretation of their Bible – Sola Scriptura), then please tell me, Mr. Swan, what would you conclude?  He mentions "other factors" should "factor into that equation," but again, please note that he did not offer a single one of these "other factors." 

Then, he goes from the illogical to the ridiculous.  Sola Scriptura being the basis for a difference of opinion (not doctrine or authority) between two Catholic apologists as to how many Protestant denominations there are?!  Oh, please!  Plus, the supposed disagreement between the "Roman Catholics" was not as much of a disagreement as he seems to think it was (see the "Introduction" section above).  As I stated above, those three Catholic apologists were saying that a particular Protestant source should not be used by Catholics as the source for a claim that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations.  The reason it shouldn’t be used to make this claim, is because the book contained faulty calculation methods.  Based on that source alone, a Catholic could, however, make the claim for thousands of Protestant denominations, maybe as high as 20,000, but not 33,000.  I agree with that.  I went beyond that particular point, however, in making my claim.  So, Mr. Swan was acting like God and creating something out of nothing. 

The problem for Mr. Swan, as it is for all Protestants, is whether there are thousands or millions of Protestant denominations, the fact is that there are at least thousands of divisions within Protestantism based on theological differences that result from Sola Scriptura.  I happen to believe that there are millions of divisions within Protestantism when you factor in matters of authority, as well.  And, that these authoritative differences result from the fact that the dogma of Sola Scriptura encourages each individual to be their own Pope, Pastor, and theologian when it comes to matters of the Bible.  He avoided that altogether, though, didn’t he?

Mr. Martignoni then gave his personal opinion of what constitutes a Protestant body. This also appears to be based on his burning in the bosom apologetic conclusions. Is this Rome’s official definition? No, it’s once again, John’s personal opinion. Interestingly, the guys over at Triablogue have been revisiting this same subject. In this post, it is pointed out that dumping 33,00 denominations into one big pile can only be done consistently if they actually share something in common: "So the very objection to Protestant diversity tacitly assumes that all Protestant denominations have a common denominator. They must have something essentially in common that makes all of them Protestant." In other words, the 33,000 different denominations actually share at least one thing in common in order to be classified together. This post also points out inherent difficulties with Romanist argumentation and is worth a look at.  

John Martignoni:

He’s trying here to make the argument that the fact all Protestant denominations have something in common, in some way diminishes the argument that the divisions within Protestantism argue against the legitimacy of Protestantism.  That is quite a stretch, but it shows how much the problem of the divisions within Protestantism is on the minds of Protestant apologists.  Of course they all have something in common: 1) They are not Catholic and quite often attack the Catholic Faith as being the bogeyman; 2) Most, if not all, of them believe in Sola Scriptura; 3) They all have Martin Luther as their spiritual forefather; and 4) None of them have valid holy orders.

Plus, my "opinion" of "what constitutes a Protestant body" (a denomination), is not based on a "burning in my bosom," rather it is based on my observations and simple logic.  Notice, again, that he offers no argument to counter my definition, he chooses instead to simply ridicule me personally.  Now, in the past, the generally-accepted definition of a "denomination" has been a number of churches, with a particular body of doctrine and a particular structure of authority, joining together to form a particular sub-group within Protestantism.  That was fine as far as it went, but I contend that the old definition needs to be updated to more accurately reflect the situation within Protestantism.  And this is not because of a "burning in my bosom" but because of my observation of what is happening within Protestantism.  Does not each and every denomination represent a division within Protestantism?  Indeed it does.  Mr. Swan, would you care to argue otherwise?  Each denomination has either its own unique body of doctrine, or it’s own particular structure of authority, does it not, Mr. Swan?  Given that, why can a denomination not be a single individual or a single family?  If that family has either, or both, a unique set of doctrines or an authority structure that answers to no earthly authority outside of itself, how is that different from any other denomination?  And why is it that people are not adhering to the authority of the pastors within the various "established" denominations?  Why?  Because they don’t need the church…they don’t need the words of a man…all they need is the Bible and their own private interpretation of Scripture.  Sola Scriptura.

James Swan:

When it comes right down to it, Roman Catholic apologists like Martignoni suffer from gross double standards in their methodology. Many of their arguments and conclusions stem from their own subjective feelings and private interpretations of Romanism and the Bible. They don’t even begin to point their same arguments back on their own worldview to see how consistent they are. 

John Martignoni:

Regarding disagreements between Roman Catholics and how I have a "double standard" in that regard, did he give specific examples of this double standard?  No.  He tries to use the example of me disagreeing with another Catholic apologist not on a matter of doctrine, or morals, or authority, rather on the matter of how many Protestant denominations there actually are.  But the point he is trying to make is absurd.  He is trying to make the point that a disagreement between Catholics on a non-doctrinal matter, on a question of fact in regard to the number of Protestant denominations, is equivalent to a disagreement among Protestants as to Baptism, the Sacraments, authority, the Rapture, once saved always saved, tradition, and so on.  Sorry, James, but they are not the same thing. 

There are no divisions among Roman Catholics on matters of doctrine.  If someone who calls themself Catholic, rejects the doctrinal teachings of the Church, then they are no longer Catholic.  If someone is no longer in union with the Pope, then they are no longer Catholic.  They do not become a "denomination" of Catholicism, they become just one more denomination within Protestantism, whether they still call themselves Catholic or not.  What defines a Catholic is unity with the Chair of Peter.  What defines a Protestant is that they are protesting Church teaching.  A Catholic who protests Church teaching is not a Catholic, they are a Protestant. 

It is not okay for Catholics to reject the doctrinal teachings of the Church.  It is mortal sin.  Not so for Protestants, however.  Protestants who reject the particular teachings of their denomination, become a de facto denomination unto themselves, and that’s okay.  That is, as long as they still agree on the "essential doctrines."  It’s okay to disagree on the "non-essential doctrines," but not on the "essential" doctrines.  (Which part of the Word of God is "non-essential" I have yet to figure out.)  That attitude is built into Protestantism.  It is not built into Catholicism.  Do Protestants believe that Wesley commited mortal sin when he split from the Anglican church?  No.  Do Protestants believe Zwingli commited mortal sin when he disagreed with Luther?  No.  Do they believe the PCA committed mortal sin when it split from the Presbyterian church?  No.  Forming your own denomination based on your private interpretation of Scripture is part of Protestantism.  It is not part of Catholicism.  Mr. Swan makes no argument to address this fundamental problem.  In fact, he stays far away from it.

Now, can "Romanists" disagree with each other on matters that are not doctrinal?  Of course they can, and they do.  Does that mean they have formed their own de facto denomination?  Not at all.  They are still in doctrinal agreement with the Pope and they are still subject to the authority of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. 

Can Protestants disagree with their Pastor on a doctrinal matter and split off and form their own church and still be good Protestants?  Indeed they can.  Again, my money is on James Swan as being his own de facto denomination.  James, if your pastor comes up with an interpretation of Scripture that you disagree with, on a doctrinal matter, who has the ultimate authority to decide who is right…you, or your Pastor? 

Sorry, James, world of difference here between Catholics and Protestants.