I haven't followed this conversation very closely but if I may interject Protestants do not disregard the traditions. We hold them in lower esteme than the scriptures. So in that regards they are NOT the SOLE rule of faith. We often look to the early creeds of the church for guidance or even build our own creeds based upon others.
That being said, as stated by the early church fathers, scriptures are the only writing inspired by God and is the only thing not subject to error. All other church writings are not inspired. Writings and creeds contain errors-but where? (Let's ask the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics if they agree on the Nicene Creed.) You must go back to the scriptures to see if "these things were so".
Technically you could have "one" denomination believing one thing but if the passage of scripture was misinterpreted all the followers of that position would be in error. So it matters not if you have one group or many groups-they could all hold errors and be equally wrong. For example, the belief that one could buy their love ones out of purgatory was an "official" doctrine of the Church. If Freepers would have been around then many RCCers would be arguing with us that you have the right to purchase a love one out of purgatory because Saint So-n-So said it to be so.
There are many Protestant denominations simply because people look at scripture and creed differently. Personally I think this is the way God designed it-almost like the tower of Babel-so that we would not think we are so wise. Of course, I think the vast majority of Protestants, Catholics and EO are in error so what does it matter. Perhaps I'll start the Church of the HarleyD's.
And, btw, your argument seems to be in error. ;O)
Your understanding of indulgences seems to be very superficial, at best. The doctrine of indulgences is supported by the Catholic Church to this day. The method, employed by unscrupulous individuals, of equating a monetary payment with the efficacy of the indulgence, was condemned by the Church. That sorry aspect of things, never universally practiced in any event, was condemned as an error in discipline, not doctrine. The doctrine, once purged of this excrescence, was and remains a biblically sanctioned practice based on the power of the keys to bind and to loose from sin.
LOL. Save me a pew. 8~)
***Perhaps I'll start the Church of the HarleyD's.***
Well, with the noise from the Screaming Eagle brand baffles in the hogs, we won't be hearing any heresies spoken in the church.
I think that is an apt analogy. By the time Luther had come along the Church had become a overweight behemoth where tradition no longer supplemented scripture, but in many cases had replaced it. Personally I like the fact that there are hundreds of different sects within what ought to be called orthodox christianity. I think it minimizes error inasmuch as nearly every sect including the right honorable Roman sect has at least some error but most of those errors involve ancillary rather than primary doctrinal disputes. (Of course most of those sects split off because they considered those ancillary positions to be primary).
The emergence of sectarian division has not divided the church, but in many ways it has united it. It has given us all the opportunity to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good." In Luther's day, if you tried to "prove all things" and disagreed with the powers that be, often the only thing you would prove is that human flesh reaches flash point at about 500 degrees Farenheit.
Each individual believer is admonished to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Each individual believer is admonsished to prove all things. Each individual believer is admonished to search the scriptures to know whether these things be true. In a centralized heirarchy, "The Thinking Has Been Done." When you reach that point, you have reached the pinnacle of the Tower of Babel. It is then time to scatter the masses.