40,001 denominations

One way Roman Catholic apologists like to argue for the legitimacy of their Church is to boast about the large number of "Protestant" denominations. It is said that there are between 30,000 and 60,000 of them. In my personal experience, 40,000 seems to be the most commonly cited figure.

By far the easiest way to respond to this argument is to disarm it. If there really were 40,000 Protestant denominations (the actual number is around 1,000), that would simply make Catholicism the 40,001st Christian denomination. At least, in the eyes of the world.

And there you have your problem. In the eyes of the world. Although around 2.5 billion people claim to be Christians, the overwhelming majority of the human race exist outside of our denominational disputes. That is why the large number of Christian denominations is one of the most common arguments used by atheists. As outsiders, they obviously do not have a bias towards the Catholic Church. They don't see in terms of Catholic vs. Protestant (and neither do I), they see in terms of Christians vs. Christians.

Roman Catholics, by contrast, obviously do have a bias towards Roman Catholicism. When they think in terms of Catholic vs. Protestant, what they're really thinking is "us vs. everyone who believes in some form of Jesus but is not us". Sometimes, "everyone" includes some very strange denominations indeed. But even if a Catholic apologist is wise enough to recognise that Mormons do not believe in Sola Scriptura, it is very easy to exaggerate the number of "Protestant" denominations when "Protestant" simply means "non-Catholic". But what if, for just a moment, we shift things. What if "Protestant" meant "non-Evangelical"? Well, now the Evangelicals can say "there are 40,000 Protestant denominations", and it is exactly as logical an argument for why Catholicism is heretical. That is to say, as much as I strongly disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, not logical at all. It would be illogical if any other denomination used it, it is illogical when Roman Catholic apologists use it.

But that doesn't solve the apparent problem of denominations. After all, they can't all be right, can they? So although the argument is, let's be honest, rather stupid, it's still worth responding to.

First, I think it's worth noting that I am a denominational anomaly. That is, I'm actually not likely to argue for any denomination in particular, because I refuse to subscribe to any of them. I'm not biased towards any of them because I find them unnecessarily divisive. I believe, as is the official position of this ministry, that there are true Christians in every denomination, but that there are no true Christian denominations. Rather, each denomination has their strengths and weaknesses. The first step to answering this dilemma, then, is to ask exactly how big these strengths and weaknesses are?

As far as weaknesses go, there are some very bad denominations out there. These, ironically, exist for the same reason as Roman Catholicism. They aren't simply minor disputes over minor issues, but rather are major disputes over major issues. Mormonism, being the example we mentioned earlier, is a henotheistic religion. Henotheism (the belief in many gods, with a special emphasis on one) is obviously an essential issue. Trinitarian monotheism is a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. Lose Trinitarian monotheism, lose the right to call yourself Christian. Given that many Roman Catholics hold so strongly to the doctrine of the Trinity that they practically claim they made it up, I'm sure my Roman Catholic readers can stand arm in arm with me on that one.

Other issues, by contrast, are not so major. For example, pedobaptism, yay or nay? This, being a non-essential issue, is often a dividing line between denominations. This means that some denominations could actually be fused together and classed as one. In fact, all denominations that disagree only on "minor" issues can be fused together to form one whole Christian faith. This not only eradicates the 40,000 denominations Roman Catholics claim exist, but also makes the 1,000 denominations that are actually believed to exist a lot more trivial. It is no longer about which denomination is correct, but rather which ones are "valid". By this,I mean which denominations are non-fatally flawed. How do we answer this?

The simplest answer is to study Scriptures. Not in a way that assumes your Church is the correct one, but in a way that assumes when God speaks, be it by word, or by moving a man's pen, man must listen. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics, this is where their denomination falls short, not by being one denomination in a sea of 40,000, but by being one denomination that often, and in many egregious ways, goes against the word of God, and then demands you reinterpret the word of God to agree with their disobedience.

In an effort to combat this, Roman Catholics claim the word of God is ambiguous, pointing to the 40,000 denominations as evidence. Well there's a hole in my bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza... Can you see the circular reasoning? The Bible must be ambiguous, because there are (allegedly) 40,000 denominations, but we can't use the Bible to assess those 40,000 denominations because the Bible must be ambiguous. Somehow, this is evidence that we must choose one - specifically the Roman Catholic denomination - to authoritatively tell us how to interpret the Bible.

But how do we know the Roman Catholic Church is the authoritative Church with the right to interpret the Bible? This is where it gets really silly. The proof that Roman Catholicism is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible is that it authoritatively interprets Bible verses like Matthew 16:18, and 2 Peter 1:20, to say as much...

With so much circular reasoning behind the Roman Catholic Church, it's unlikely that they truly are the one true Church of Christ. The Apostles themselves did not take such an irresponsible approach! As an example, in Acts 17:10-12, we read "Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men."

So what do we have here? First, notice, the the conclusion of this account is that "therefore many of them believed...". They did not begin as believers. By default, Paul and Silas were not viewed as authority figures. So they didn't roll up to the synagogue and announce "hey, according to 2 Peter 1:20, we have authority to interpret that Bible for you." No, they brought the Gospel, and the Bereans (including Gentiles) were the ones searching the Scriptures. So notice, in the Bible, Scripture is used to test the Apostles. Only in heretical cults are the so-called "Apostles" given permission to reinterpret Scripture.

Incidentally, that's what happens just one verse later. "But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds." (Acts 17:13). But notice, throughout His ministry, Jesus' main problem with the Jews was their mistreatment of Scripture. He would constantly mock them, asking "have you not read...", and rebuke them for "laying aside the commandment of God" to "hold to your tradition". And what do we find in the Roman Catholic tradition? An awful lot of laying aside Scripture to hold to their tradition.

As a Christian, I believe it is far wiser to lay aside tradition in order to hold to the word of God. If the Apostles, or even an angel from Heaven, preached another Gospel, I would consider them accursed, because the Scriptures actually say "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." (Galatians 1:8-10).

And how do I know if someone preaches any other gospel? Well, it can't be subject to the authority of the preacher. Why? Well because Paul says if "we" preach any other gospel. He even warned the Church "...take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:28-30).

This means Paul was not even speaking hypothetically in Galatians 1:8. He knew that humans are weak in the flesh, and that even true Apostles, like Peter, and prominent Church leaders, like Barnabas, could deviate (Galatians 2:11-14). And he also knew that when the Apostles departed to be with Christ, those left behind could go astray, and lead others astray also. There is no infallible Church. But there are infallible Scriptures. As he would go on to tell Timothy, "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:13-17).

As Christians, what do we do to ensure we are following Christ, and not impostors speaking in His name? As members of His Church, how do we ensure that when savage wolves rise up, speaking perverse things, we are not among the disciples they draw after themselves? Paul tells us right here. It is Scripture that makes us wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Scripture, being inspired by God Himself (or in the original Greek, that is "theopneustos", i.e. "God breathed"), really is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

But then, why do Roman Catholics rebuke us for believing this? Why do they admit that Scripture is inspired by God, but leave it at that? When we get our doctrine from Scripture, Roman Catholics say "no, you can't do that, it's not for private interpretation!" When we use it to reprove them, they reply "where do you get the authority to tell us this?" When we use it to correct them, we are assured "Christ gave us a Church, not a Bible!" When we seek Scripture's instruction in righteousness, somehow, there is much we cannot find, because we are not seeking Roman Catholic instruction either. Worst of all, Scripture is not able to make us wise to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, because no matter how many times Scripture affirms that salvation is through faith in Christ Jesus, it is not through faith alone. At least, not according to the other gospel the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

We are now starting to see that Scripture is, rather clearly, against at least one supposedly Christian denomination. Ironically, this is the denomination that most frequently argues from the plethora of other denominations. But we can use the same logic consistently. If we can study Scripture, and use it to refute one heretical denomination, then we can use it in the same way against two heretical denominations. And a third. Four. If necessary, applying Scripture, we can refute 60,000, or even 600,000 heretical denominations. Why? Because it says we can. And in fact, the fastest way to do so is to ask, does a denomination have such a high regard of God's own words that they will seek to submit to it? If they say no, whether it be because they deny that all Scripture is the word of God, or because they believe extra sources (namely their own) are equal, or even greater, they are automatically heretical.

So, what are we to make of the original argument? Are there really 40,000 Protestant denominations? Does this give an ounce of credibility to Roman Catholicism? To a Roman Catholic, one might think it does. There is, admittedly, something appealing about not having to study the Bible for ourselves. It's like asking our parents to do our math homework for us while we go away and watch TV. But when we lay aside our intellectual laziness and apply basic reasoning skills, what we actually find is this argument backfires. Not only does it reveal the incredibly low quality of Roman Catholic apologetics, but if we dig a little deeper, we are forced to categorise Roman Catholicism as "yet another denomination". Then, using Scripture, we can show that it is absolutely not a valid one.

AI usage

AI was used to create this image.