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.

[conservonator]

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

Scripture records the beginning of the Church, not it's entirety. There's no reason to believe that the initial growth of the office number should stop in the first century.

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

Agreed, every word, number jot and title had meaning. What that meaning is is foe one end: the story of God's love for man.

[conservonator]

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.

Paul was not an apostle? Judas's office was filled, Paul's appointment by Christ added to the number. Ask and you shall receive: the growing Church was in need: He showed us the way, as He always does.

[Seven_0]

Scripture records the beginning of the Church, not it's entirety. There's no reason to believe that the initial growth of the office number should stop in the first century.

Neither is there a reason to believe that the number should grow.

Seven

[Cvengr]

Do you believe that Mary isn’t the Mother of God?

No, I don't. I don't believe Mariam was the Mother of God the Father, nor the mother of God the Holy Spirit, but I do believe she was the woman who bore Jesus Christ who was God Incarnate as the child, who then grew in the body as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, those who attempt to deceive others into worshipping somebody other than God, by attempting to associate Mary with a senior position of authority to her Savior, without explicitly warning those who may not know better, simply are attempting to further grieve the Son as well as the Holy Spirit.

[conservonator]

< Neither is there a reason to believe that the number should grow.

Two reasons: Providence and the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, says so.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***Then don’t say you “aren’t conscious of sin” and expect Christians who know the Scriptures to believe you.***

Well, you don’t know the Scriptures very well, then. I was strongly referencing Scripture when I made my statement:

Hebrews 10:2
For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.

I’ll leave you to mull its proper interpretation, but I like Dr. Eckleburg have ALREADY been purified from our sins. And, even if our sanctification is ongoing and we still do sin, we are ALREADY perfected forever. This is how and why we can and SHOULD boldly enter the Holiest.

We stand in a state that no Catholic will truly understand this side of Paradise, I’m afraid. It requires you to shrug off too many false things first, which would render you no longer Catholic. Hebrews is a wonderful book that not only addresses the Jewish sacerdotalism, but also strongly refutes the Catholic as well.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I, like Dr. Eckleburg, have ALREADY been purified from our sins. And, even if our sanctification is ongoing and we still do sin, we are ALREADY perfected forever. This is how and why we can and SHOULD boldly enter the Holiest.

We stand in a state that no Catholic will truly understand this side of Paradise, I'm afraid. It requires you to shrug off too many false things first, which would render you no longer Catholic. Hebrews is a wonderful book that not only addresses the Jewish sacerdotalism, but also strongly refutes the Catholic as well.

AMEN, L-C!!!

I can't count the times I've had a question and my husband sends me back to Hebrews. It's all there, for those with ears to hear.

"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

And having an 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." -- Hebrews 10:9-22

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." -- Psalm 119:89