Yes, but I think it's a weak analogy. For one thing, the content of letters to your sister is never going to be an issue of great cultural and political importance, whereas there is actually an incentive to twist Scripture as religion has been used to control people for centuries.
Secondly, passing this tradition down is like game of 'telephone', where the content can evolve with each generation of hearing & re-telling. If it gets to the point where your great-great nieces and nephews have interpretations that contradict the text of your letters, then I cannot count on them as reliable sources. Especially if, in your letters, you predict that people are in later years going to claim to be your relatives and misrepresent your letters.
Thirdly, I feel confident that God is a better writer than you or me, and can make Himself understood without needing a lot of help from flawed human beings.
Point being, there is something in the Protestant approach that boosts this dividing ratio tremendously. I think the root cause is ostensibly Sola Scriptura.
The Bible is simply not that badly written. An honest appeal to it cannot support scores of mutually exclusive doctrines.
As far as why this division is so much more prevalent in Protestantism, I imagine it has a lot to do with the authoritative hierarchy of the Catholic church, and the fear of members that they would be lost if they left it. Lots of protestant denominations have developed hierarchies of their own, but the false doctrines of salvation by faith only, once-saved-always-saved, etc., have created a mindset among many that they can choose whichever church they like, or even start their own, and everything will be just dandy. And again, these doctrines -- being false -- cannot originate from an honest, thorough examination of Scripture.
By the way, there were certainly divisions already taking place in the first century -- churches and individual Christians were admonished by the New Testament writers for their partisan tendencies ("I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos") and for drifting away from sound doctrine. Entire congregations -- i.e., Laodicea -- had seemingly gone into apostasy. Were they Protestants?
BTW, I do not consider myself a Protestant, though I imagine you certainly would.
Ya, it's a bad anology, but don't go too far out of your way to miss the point.
Secondly, passing this tradition down is like game of 'telephone', where the content can evolve with each generation of hearing & re-telling. If it gets to the point where your great-great nieces and nephews have interpretations that contradict the text of your letters, then I cannot count on them as reliable sources. Especially if, in your letters, you predict that people are in later years going to claim to be your relatives and misrepresent your letters.
Which would leave you guessing as to what the letters really mean. I'm not sure how that makes you better off. It hardly puts you in a position of authority. Analogies aside, there is no shortage of writings throughout Church history which comment on Scripture. Hence, distortions, willful or otherwise, can be readily challenged.
Thirdly, I feel confident that God is a better writer than you or me, and can make Himself understood without needing a lot of help from flawed human beings.
Given the sheer number of misunderstandings between christians today, I'm not inclined to agree. And for the record, God's writing skill is not at issue here.
*******
The Bible is simply not that badly written. An honest appeal to it cannot support scores of mutually exclusive doctrines.
Again, it has nothing to do with how well the Bible was written. It has to do with how well the Bible is interpreted. Shakespeare was a good writer, but 400 years later I need an expert on British Literature to explain. As for the "scores of mutually exclusive doctrines", that they exist is self evident. As to whether or not their appeals were honest, I'm not qualified to say.
As far as why this division is so much more prevalent in Protestantism, I imagine it has a lot to do with the authoritative hierarchy of the Catholic church, and the fear of members that they would be lost if they left it. Lots of protestant denominations have developed hierarchies of their own, but the false doctrines of salvation by faith only, once-saved-always-saved, etc., have created a mindset among many that they can choose whichever church they like, or even start their own, and everything will be just dandy. And again, these doctrines -- being false -- cannot originate from an honest, thorough examination of Scripture.
Pardon me for pointing this out, but the obvious question has now become "where does that leave you". Put differently, "How do you differ from others who do their own thing?"
By the way, there were certainly divisions already taking place in the first century -- churches and individual Christians were admonished by the New Testament writers for their partisan tendencies ("I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos") and for drifting away from sound doctrine. Entire congregations -- i.e., Laodicea -- had seemingly gone into apostasy. Were they Protestants?
The early church did have it's issues to deal with. But schisms were considered worse than heresy. As such, they were very rare. Not so with Protestants.
BTW, I do not consider myself a Protestant, though I imagine you certainly would.
IMHO, If you can, in some way, shape or form, trace your brand of christianity back to the Reformation, then you are a Protestant. Otherwise, you are not.
FWIW, some Catholics would say that we Orthodox are the first protestants. But that's how food fights get started.