Sola Scriptura and the Proliferation of Protestant Denominations

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:

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

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:

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.

If this Church was not infallibly protected in some manner, how could it BE the pillar and foundation of the truth?

You answered your own question...Your church is not infallible...My church is not infallible...The only infallible truth comes from God...

Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

There must be some element within the Church that enables it to be the "pillar and foundation of the truth". Something guided by God that can give us an interpretation of the inspired Word of God, without questioning whether it is correct or not.

There is...The Holy Spirit who indwells all believers...

Your problem is that you don't believe that this particular scripture applies to you and your church as well...

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.

That goes for you and your pope as well...That also goes for the Apostles...Including Peter...NO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION...

God is the pillar and ground of the truth...Not your church...

Peter doesn't rule my church, Christ does. And His (Christ's) authority is always there.) Peter's is in fact in the same place, Peter is DEAD and therefore can not provide any guidance, or anything else for that matter.

So it is your position that Christ as the head of the Church--and I agree with you about that by the way--absolutely excludes any lesser authority as a matter of principle?

Having just finished studying Acts in my Catholic Bible Study class, I can only say----BALONEY. The hierarchical church WAS there from the beginning, with Bishops, Priests, and Deacons initially appointed by the Apostles, then later by the succeeding Bishops--and in EVERY case, ordained into the Apostolic Succession. Even Paul himself was so ordained.

I understand why they would teach you that, but they are wrong.

Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

Decision making was done as a congregation. James the brother of Jesus presided over the meeting, but no one person made a final determination.

Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch,...

What you see is more of a Presbyterian or congregational structure.

And yet, if you read Scriptures, you will note that Paul goes to the Jewish SYNAGOGUE to preach in the towns where he evangelizes at

Well sure he did...But what happened to the converts he gathered??? You don't think they set up their Christian churches in Jewish synagogues, do you???

Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

You can bet there were no Christian elders in the Jewish Synagogues...

Paul preached on the street corners, had church front meetings, tent meetings and went house to house...

This commission was not absolute.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Sounds pretty dog gone absolute to me...

But The RC argument is that an individual is — contrary to the testimony of the Word of God itself — incapable of understanding the Word of God. He needs the Magisterium. But can he understand the Magisterium?

I would stipulate that it doesn't really matter if he can or not. It's nice if children understand the rationale behind parental authority, but it's not essential. What is essential is their obedience.

And yes, I think that many, many individuals are incapable of understanding the Word of God correctly. Your theology seems to leave a big hole for children, the mentally ill, the ignorant, the illiterate, and the slow-witted. Those folks all have to trust that *someone* in authority is giving them the straight dope on the Gospel--their parents, pastor Bob, First Baptist Congregation, etc. And I would submit that the 2000 year Magisterial teaching of the Universal Church is far more deserving of obedience than any of those.

It proves that even in the RC church that believers must have the spirit of God working in them to truly grasp God’s truth...

Of course!! Was there any ever doubt of that? Believers are led by the Spirit....but how can it be that they be led by the Spirit away from what the Church has always understood from the time of the Apostles till now? The Holy Ghost leads to, among other things, obedience.

There are not 10’s of thousands of denominations. That would be at least 20,000 different denominations, and I challenge anyone to give me the list of them.

Incidentally, those with a congretional, independent local church polity are NOT different denominations. The Main Street Baptist Church of Topeka and the Holiness Baptist Church of Columbia are not 2 different denominations. They are “baptist.”

In fact, I wouldn’t really distinguish between many of the baptistic organizations.....the SBC and the CBC, for example. Both are baptist.

"Decision making was done as a congregation. James the brother of Jesus presided over the meeting, but no one person made a final determination."

Sorry, but the Jerusalem council doesn't count as the regular mode of operation. That was what would be classified today as an "ecumenical synod" (same as Vatican II). In the exercise of the day-to-day administration, the heirarchial model was "it".

And deciding who to send on a "site visit" is NOT the same thing as deciding who will be a priest or bishop--which again was done according to the heirarchial structure.

Y'see, as I said, I just got through studying ALL of Acts, and the standard Protestant practice of selective quotation isn't going to cut it.

So it is your position that Christ as the head of the Church--...

No sir, don't try to spin this back. The question is, is the below your position where "Peter rules"?

Likewise the Church. Peter rules, and if a question arises about that ruling, Peter rules again. And again. And again. The authority is always there, always in the same place, and always capable of providing firm and sure guidance.

Again, another diversion technique for the "magicians".

The element of which you speak is the Holy Spirit, God within his people. And I’m quite sure you would agree that God is infallible.

To suggests that the element that enables the Church to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” is a man is blasphemous.

The Bible identifies the Rock of the Church many, many times. And it is always the same.

God has given us the means, and it is not our own opinions. It is the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that identifies the Holy Spirit as the Interpreter of Scripture.

Is the Catechism incorrect? Where does the Holy Spirit reside in your view, and in the Bible’s view?

You answered your own question...Your church is not infallible...My church is not infallible...The only infallible truth comes from God...

Then what "church" is the bible talking about being the "pillar and foundation of the truth"? Which visible society existed that stems from the apostles? Unless you think the Bible itself is fallible.

There is...The Holy Spirit who indwells all believers...

Your problem is that you don't believe that this particular scripture applies to you and your church as well...

Well, thanks for identifying "my problem"...

Now, to correct you, I DO believe that the Holy Spirit indwells in the believer. However, Scriptures NOWHERE tells us that each individual believer can interpret the Scriptures without error. That apparently is not a "church-wide" charism given by the Spirit!

That goes for you and your pope as well...That also goes for the Apostles...Including Peter...NO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION...

I agree - there is no private interpretation. Nor does the Catholic Church teach that even the pope makes private interpretations.

God is the pillar and ground of the truth...Not your church...

The Word of God specifically says "the church". I am sorry if you disagree with the consequences of that statement, but the fact remains - unless you believe the Bible is in error.

Regards

I believe you misunderstood the way I used the phrase. I meant “Peter rules” in same sense as “the judge today ruled on XX”. “Peter makes a ruling” would be a less ambiguous way to say it.

There’s nothing magic about our position here. It’s the very order of the cosmos.

The father is the head of the family, right? So what if the father and mother go off to dinner, and say to the oldest kid...”you’re in charge while we’re gone.”

What’s the first thing that a disobedient younger child tries to say to the eldest when they leave? “You’re not Dad! You’re not mom! I don’t have to listen to you!!!”

Well it’s just as bogus an argument in the family context as it is in the religious one. Christ is the Head of the Church, no ifs ands ors or buts. But Christ put Peter and the Apostles in charge in his stead—so Peter and the Apostles must be obeyed because to them the authority of Christ has been delegated. Remember...”he who hears you, hears me”...”what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”...”feed my lambs, feed my sheep”.

The element of which you speak is the Holy Spirit, God within his people. And I’m quite sure you would agree that God is infallible.

Agreed. NO ONE is "infallible" without the Spirit of God.

To suggests that the element that enables the Church to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” is a man is blasphemous.

Even if God Himself establishes, promotes it, and continues its existence? God acts through men - and men recognize that it is God working through men. Thus, God works through Moses, and God works through the Jews to enable them to identify God working through Moses!

Would you agree that Paul's Gospel is infallible, as he says in Galatians 1, based on God Himself, rather than Paul? Although a man preaches, the Galatians recognize that it is God's Gospel, God's Word. This continues to happen today, since God promised it, and He has acted in this manner throughout the entire bible.

God has given us the means, and it is not our own opinions. It is the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that identifies the Holy Spirit as the Interpreter of Scripture.

That is absolutely true - and we believe He speaks through Ecumenical Councils or the ordinary teaching "always given in every place". Thus, the Spirit of God (on this particular subject) can be found in the "sense of the faithful" that identifies God's Word when taught, as well as in the Magesterium when it presents a teaching to be accepted by that same faithful who are inhabited by the Spirit of God.

By the way, you have presented very good comments.

Regards

You’re quite knowledgable of the Bible, so I’m sure you’re equally familiar with the attempts throughout the Israeli history where God established a man as head of his church (as it was at that time), and the man continually failes. You mention Moses, have you forgotten why Moses never entered the promised land?

The Israelites kept screaming for God to appoint a man to lead them, and God continued to provide them kings that continually failed. Why would you presume that after offering Christ as a sacrifice for all, God would place the success of that monumental event into the hands of another man?

It is only man who desires man to lead the Church. God is the head, and that was the reason for Christ. If leadership of the Church was possible through humans, there would have never been a need for Christ to be crucified.

Prior to the NT, can you name a single man that was granted the powers of infalliblity by God? After tearing down the curtain, why would God quickly erect a new one in the form of mortal, and therefore sinful, leadership?

As for Galatians 1, Paul is warning against straying from diligent study of the Word with the Spirit’s guidance. He quite adroitly points out that self proclaimed councils were twisting the Word. This is a lesson that is missed in the arguement for Ecumenical Councils and Popes. Paul specifically points out that the only way the Word can be twisted is by the listening to another’s interpretation rather than doing your own diligent study. This follows very closely in line with Rabinical teachings, that the only way to know God is to encounter him directly through His Word.

Can you explain to me the difference between the Magesterium and the Levitical priests and groups that strayed from God’s word?

Can you explain to me the difference between the Magesterium and the Levitical priests and groups that strayed from God’s word?

Not on par with Jo, but off the top of my head, "who hears you hears me", "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.", "feed my lambs tend my sheep feed my sheep," "On this rock I will build My church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail", "Pillar and ground of truth", etc.

I don't remember anything like that in the OT, and I don't remember anyone begging for a hierarchical Church leadership, but it's pretty clear from NT scripture that that's what He gave us, and with good reason, we're all in some way, like the Ethiopian eunuch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.