Sola Scriptura and the Proliferation of Protestant Denominations

TeamPyro ^ | Phil Johnson

[Gamecock]

In a videotape titled "The Pope: The Holy Father," Catholic apologist Scott Hahn claims the proliferation of Protestant denominations proves the Reformers' principle of sola Scriptura is a huge mistake:

Do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible." Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don't we[?]

A tract titled "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth" (published by Catholic Answers) makes a similar charge:

The "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions. Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians. Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the "Bible alone," but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.

That is a favorite argument of Catholic apologists. They are convinced that the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21 is an organizational solidarity that is incompatible with both denominationalism and independency. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the only way true Christian unity will be fully and finally achieved is when "separated brethren"—non-Catholic Christians—reunite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.

Keith Fournier, Catholic author and Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice, sums up the typical Roman Catholic perspective:

Throughout Christian history, what was once intended to be an all-inclusive (catholic) body of disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ has been fractured over and over. These fractures threaten to sever us from our common historical and doctrinal roots. I do not believe that such divisions were ever part of the Lord's intention, no matter how sincere or important the issues that undergirded the breaking of unity. [Keith A. Fournier, A House United? (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 37.]

Fournier says he is "not advocating a false non-denominationalism or superficial irenicism that denies distinctives of doctrine or practice." [Ibid.] But he is suggesting that doctrinal differences, "no matter how . . . important," should not cause organizational divisions. Moreover, fewer than five pages earlier, he had berated those who "fight over theology." [Ibid., 25.] And (ironically) just a few pages before that, he had expressed outrage at John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Jim McCarthy for saying they believe Roman Catholicism's rejection of justification by faith alone is "doctrinal error" [Ibid., 21-22.]

Notice carefully, then, what Fournier is saying: He claims he wants unity without "superficial irenicism," and yet he objects when anyone contends for sound doctrine or (worse still) labels Roman Catholic doctrine "error." It seems the "unity" Fournier envisions is merely the same kind of unity the Roman Catholic Church has sought for hundreds of years: a unity where all who profess to be Christians yield implicit obedience to Papal authority, and where even individual conscience is ultimately subject to the Roman Catholic Church.

Although Fournier politely declines to state who he believes is to blame for fracturing the organizational unity of Christianity, [Ibid., 29.] it is quite clear he would not be predisposed to blame a Church whose spiritual authority he regards as infallible. And since the Catholic Church herself officially regards Protestantism as ipso facto schismatic, Fournier's own position is not difficult to deduce. Although Fournier manages to sound sympathetic and amiable toward evangelicals, it is clear he believes that as long as they remain outside the Church of Rome, they are guilty of sins that thwart the unity Christ prayed for.

Of course, every cult and every denomination that claims to be the One True Church ultimately takes a similar approach to "unity." Jehovah's Witnesses believe they represent the only legitimate church and that all others who claim to be Christians are schismatics. They believe the unity of the visible church was shattered by the Nicene Council.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Church of Rome was being schismatic when Rome asserted papal supremacy. To this day, Orthodox Christians insist that Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism, is the Church Christ founded—and that would make Roman Catholicism schismatic in the same sense Rome accuses Protestants of being schismatic. One typical Orthodox Web site says, "The Orthodox Church is the Christian Church. The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination. We are the family of Christian communities established by the Apostles and disciples Jesus sent out to proclaim the Good News to the world, and by their successors through the ages."

All these groups regard the church primarily as a visible, earthly organization. Therefore they cannot conceive of a true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines. They regard all other denominations as schismatic rifts in the church's organizational unity. And if organizational unity were what Christ was praying for, then the very existence of denominations would indeed be a sin and a shame. That's why the Orthodox Web site insists, "The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination."

Furthermore, if their understanding of the principle of unity is correct, then whichever organization can legitimately claim to be the church founded by Christ and the apostles is the One True Church, and all others are guilty of schism—regardless of any other doctrinal or biblical considerations.

That is precisely why many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have focused their rhetoric on "unity." Both sincerely believe if they can establish the claim that they, and no one else, are the One True Church instituted by Christ, then all other Protestant complaints about doctrine, church polity, and ecclesiastical abuses become moot. If they can successfully sell their notion that the "unity" of John 17:21 is primarily an organizational unity, they should in effect be able to convince members of denominational and independent churches to reunite with the Mother Church regardless of whether she is right or wrong on other matters.

The plea for unity may at first may sound magnanimous and charitable to Protestant ears (especially coming from a Church with a long history of enforcing her will by Inquisition). But when the overture is being made by someone who claims to represent the One True Church, the call for "unity" turns out to be nothing but a kinder, gentler way of demanding submission to the Mother Church's doctrine and ecclesiastical authority.

Nonetheless, in recent years many gullible Protestants have been drawn into either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy by the claim that one or the other represents the only church Christ founded. Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up. Many recent converts from evangelicalism will testify that the proliferation and fragmentation of so many Protestant denominations is what first convinced them that Protestant principles must be wrong.

In a series of posts over the next couple of weeks, I want to examine the topics of like-mindedness, disagreement, and divisiveness; the culpability of popes, feuding bishops, and differing denominations when it comes to causing schism; and the kind of unity Christ prayed for.

[RobbyS]

Indeed, every Catholic priest is said to be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. But again, I propose that one not assume a total break between old and new covenant. There was, after all, a table in the tabernacle, on which an offering of bread and wine was set up. I take this as a foreshadowing of the New Covenant sacrifice, just as the Passover meal is a foreshadowing. Jesus is indeed the new Moses, but he is also Lord, and on Pentecost His Spirit descends on those gathered in the Upper Room and the people ascent to the New Covenant. In this wise, Peter acts the role of the Moses, as representative of Christ. Indeed, we think of the priest as acting in persona Christi representing the Sacrifice offered once and for all by Christ. The Bible is, after all, a unity, and nothing in the New Testament makes much sense unless we reflect back on the whole of the Old. In the Old we find the potential that is actuated in the New. The daily and bloody sacrifices, the Holocausts are brought to and end with the sacrifice of the cross, of which the former are but a foreshadowing. What distinguishes us from the Jews is that they eschew our insights and continue to search their Scriptures for the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Law. But in the New Testament and in the testimony of the Church we see what they do not see, We have the key to the door that is locked to them.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***No. It’s half the truth. Christ is a priest forever. Forever. That doesn’t mean one-time over and done with..it means the condition of his priesthood lasts for all time—once for all.***

I was citing scripture:

For by one offering he has PERFECTED FOREVER those who are being sanctified. ~ Hebrews 10:14

Christ is priest forever. True.
Them being sanctified are already perfected forever by that one offering. True.

It is Rome that has the half truth.

---

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

---

One offering by ONE priest that perfected forever the holy ones. There is NOW no longer an offering for sin.

Rome is wrong.
Her priesthood is inferior.
Her sacerdotalism is a sin against the perfect offering of Christ.
Christ no longer works to atone sin: he SITS.
Let Jesus get off the cross.

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

As Paul says, I know nothing against myself. My King and Priest has declared me perfect forever. It is he who stand at the Mercy Seat on my behalf and declares: This one has been perfected forever.

Therefore, Lord Calvinus may boldly enter the Holiest to offer up his own sacrifices, not for sin, of which I have no consciousness, but of other things. I’m sorry Catholics are missing the boat, but you will have an eternity to catch up when you figure out you not longer need a Pope.

[Claud]

Therefore, Lord Calvinus may boldly enter the Holiest to offer up his own sacrifices,

Claud, on the other hand, with fear and trembling allows the Holiest to boldly enter him.

"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" - 1 Cor 10

[Lord_Calvinus]

***Therefore, Lord Calvinus may boldly enter the Holiest to offer up his own sacrifices,

Claud, on the other hand, with fear and trembling allows the Holiest to boldly enter him.***

To each his own. I suppose that if you don’t think you are a priest, then you have no right to be in the temple of God and we both know that those who profane the Holiest were killed by God.

And, even though it is a fearful thing to be in the hands of a living God, we are still encouraged to boldness....

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Like I said, you Catholics will have an eternity to play catchup.

[jo kus]

But you will note that the Austinian quote is totally wrong. That was my main point. I have seen it flow from many even big name Catholic Apologists without a response. It is wrong and needs to be taken from the apologia, lest you be accused of knowingly throwing out falsehoods. And no, Rome has spoken the matter is closed is not the same as two councils have deliberated it and suggest that the Pope get on board. That is like saying that “Bill Clinton has spoken on welfare reform, the matter is closed.”

Point taken. It appeared that you were saying that the decision was already made and that calling the Apostolic See was an unnecessary formality. That doesn't seem to be the case. Thus, it seems the truth has fallen somewhere in between. After some reading because of your post, I have learned something new. Thanks, I will be more careful using that.

Scholars indeed are not infallible. Look to many of the Catholic writings on Luther, you will find people willing to fabricate things from whole cloth, and then they are echoed from the 1500’s until now, and quoted as near scripture! Not saying that any side is worse than the others, but that is why we stick to the original sources as much as we possibly can.

I agree, and I apologize for not being more careful. I do not read Latin and did not know enough of the particular history behind the condemnation of Pelagius. I assumed that those well known and oft-quoted words were his actual words. As you have said, both sides have quoted things out of context. On another site, someone quoted part of the old Catechism to state that the Church considered the Bible a dead letter. Naturally, out of context, but you can imagine the reaction to that.

As for 4th century position of the Pope, that is still sitting on the basis of the old Imperial seat of power (Chalcedon canon 28). What has happened is the accumulation of more erroneous traditions piled on top of ceremony and pomp. All that is required for something to be messed up is time and people.

Canon 28 doesn't tell us the position of the Pope rests on the Imperial seat of power - it adds Constantinople as an Apostolic See, none of which are superior to Rome. This canon was not accepted by Rome - "Apostolic See" suggests that the Apostles established them and there were no custom of apostlic establishments in Constantinople prior to 300 AD. The apostle Andrew is a late addition that magically appears to justify the term.

No matter what it "rests on", quite frankly, the point is the people of the time realized that the Bishop of Rome had a particular pride of place. Now, whether that is attributed to Matthew 16 or the capital of the Imperial Empire, I don't see that as a major concern, since Jesus didn't give specific instructions to the Apostles on running ecclesiastical governmental affairs once He ascended. It appears that the Church, though, believed that what happened was indeed being sanctioned from above, and the common person believed that, as well.

I wonder what would have happened if the Apostolic See DISAGREED with the synods. What happened historically in such cases, such as the so-called "Robber Council"?

Regards

[Claud]

As I said, everytime I go to Mass I unite myself in His Once-for-All Priesthood and His Eternal Sacrifice--if I went every Sunday to a place where we just sang hymns and heard lectures on Scripture for an hour I doubt if I would be as secure in my priestly vocation.

But oooohhhhh how rich is that quote you posted!!!

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

What a marvelous verse....so pregnant with liturgical meaning!

[Seven_0]

Interesting isn't it, you're left with pitting scripture against scripture: either Paul or Mathias was not an actual apostle, or the 12 was symbolic of the 12 Tribes of Israel demonstrating the continuity of convenient between old and new testament.

No, I am not left with pitting scripture against scripture. These scriptures are inspired by God and there is no reason to think that God has overlooked the details. I do not fear talking of things that I cannot explain but I note that you have left out some possibilities.

Both the numbers 12 and 14 appear many times in scripture and are symbolic. Revelation 7 leaves out two of the original tribes. It is possible that both Paul and Mathias are part of the twelve.

Seven

[conservonator]

Both the numbers 12 and 14 appear many times in scripture and are symbolic. Revelation 7 leaves out two of the original tribes. It is possible that both Paul and Mathias are part of the twelve.

Could be, but making divination based on numerology rather than a coherent, seamless reading of the entirety of Scripture, seems rather dangerous. The basic point is that the concept of office is Biblical. The fact that the Apostolic office grew from the original 12 is also biblical.

[raygunfan]

YOU:
***The pope, when speaking ex cathedra is guided by the Holy spirit, he doesnt need to have that interpreted, unless you doubt the Holy Spirit.***

Huh. You mean I’m guided by the Holy Spirit more than the Pope. Oh, well, I guess part time guidance is better than none.

BTW, your logic doesn’t follow (if it has not already been pointed out): John, in writing his Gospel, was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Should I, then,...

a). conclude that John doesn’t need interpretation using your logic, making the Pope irrelevant.
b). conclude that the Pope needs interpretation opening up every Catholic to the charge they make against Protestants: Every Catholic his own pope.

You make the call, but it doesn’t look good if you look to the Pope.

ME: again, note, when the pope speaks AS THE SUPREME TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, he had the God given charism of infallibility from the Holy Spirit, not in everyday conversation or privately held opinions.

We are not talking about you, or St John either, we are talking about the historically established papacy from peter to benedict.

[raygunfan]

YOU:
***The pope, when speaking ex cathedra is guided by the Holy spirit, he doesnt need to have that interpreted, unless you doubt the Holy Spirit.***

Huh. You mean I’m guided by the Holy Spirit more than the Pope. Oh, well, I guess part time guidance is better than none.

BTW, your logic doesn’t follow (if it has not already been pointed out): John, in writing his Gospel, was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Should I, then,...

a). conclude that John doesn’t need interpretation using your logic, making the Pope irrelevant.
b). conclude that the Pope needs interpretation opening up every Catholic to the charge they make against Protestants: Every Catholic his own pope.

You make the call, but it doesn’t look good if you look to the Pope.

ME: again, note, when the pope speaks AS THE SUPREME TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH on maters of faith or morals, he had the God given charism of infallibility from the Holy Spirit, not in everyday conversation or privately held opinions.

We are not talking about you, or St John either, we are talking about the historically established papacy from peter to benedict.

[raygunfan]

YOU:
***The pope, when speaking ex cathedra is guided by the Holy spirit, he doesnt need to have that interpreted, unless you doubt the Holy Spirit.***

Huh. You mean I’m guided by the Holy Spirit more than the Pope. Oh, well, I guess part time guidance is better than none.

BTW, your logic doesn’t follow (if it has not already been pointed out): John, in writing his Gospel, was guided by the Holy Spirit.

Should I, then,...

a). conclude that John doesn’t need interpretation using your logic, making the Pope irrelevant.
b). conclude that the Pope needs interpretation opening up every Catholic to the charge they make against Protestants: Every Catholic his own pope.

You make the call, but it doesn’t look good if you look to the Pope.

ME: again, note, when the pope speaks AS THE SUPREME TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH on maters of faith or morals, he has the God given charism of infallibility from the Holy Spirit, not in everyday conversation or privately held opinions.

We are not talking about you, or St John either, we are talking about the historically established papacy from peter to benedict.

[Lord_Calvinus]

I heard you the first time. ;^)

[Campion]

Therefore, Lord Calvinus may boldly enter the Holiest to offer up his own sacrifices, not for sin, of which I have no consciousness

If we say, 'We are without sin,' we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. -- 1 John 1:8

[raygunfan]

YOU:

I heard you the first time. ;^)

ME: yet you attempted to twist the meaning of the words that are plain and straight forward? why?

[Lord_Calvinus]

Perhaps you weren’t typing Excarchiros.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The royal generation and priesthood of the believer is not about atonement. That is the Catholic sin. It is by ONE offering that Christ perfected forever those who are being sanctified. There is NO MORE offering for sin. (THIS IS GOSPEL TRUTH!!!)

Keep your inferior priesthood if you must. I am of the order of Christ, a part of a royal priesthood. If you think that some invented Petrine order is the OT fulfillment, then I won't try to stop you.

AMEN!

If I've learned anything from these discussions on FR, it is this...

Some people think their own obedience saves them, and some people know it is Christ's obedience that saves anyone.

Some people think their own good works will save them; and some people know that the only work that saves is Christ's work on the cross.

Some people think their own righteousness will save them; and some people know only Christ's righteousness saves the fallen sinner.

Some people think they choose to believe and move toward God; and some people know it is God who does the choosing and the Holy Spirit who does the moving.

Some people think their own sacrifices please God; and some people know the only sacrifice that means anything is that of Jesus Christ alone.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If we say, 'We are without sin,' we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. -- 1 John 1:8

All of us sin every day of our lives. But Christ has paid for the sins of His sheep. Every one of them.

That fact should and does induce obedience, gratitude and worship of the Triune God from whom all blessings flow.

As the Holy Spirit leads us in sanctification, we will hate our sins more and sin less and less, by the grace of God alone.

But even as sinners, we still have been forgiven.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" -- Ephesians 2:4-6

[Campion]

All of us sin every day of our lives.

Then don't say you "aren't conscious of sin" and expect Christians who know the Scriptures to believe you.

[Seven_0]

The fact that the Apostolic office grew from the original 12 is also biblical.

I agree, but is there support that the number of apostles rose above 14?

Could be, but making divination based on numerology rather than a coherent, seamless reading of the entirety of Scripture, seems rather dangerous. The basic point is that the concept of office is Biblical

I suppose any errors interpreting scripture can be dangerous, especially numerology which is a croc. Nevertheless, number in scripture are symbols, they have meaning.

Seven

[blue-duncan]

“The fact that the Apostolic office grew from the original 12 is also biblical.”

Don’t be so quick to agree. Judas Iscariot was one of the original twelve and the office did not grow out of them but out of the gift to the churches in Ephesians 4 after His resurrection.