What's implicit in your theory is that this splintering is a greater evil than one corrupt organization. So you need to begin by proving how the corrupt Romanist organization is a greater good than smaller gospel believing organizations. Then you need to take into account that despite the fact that these churches emphasize different gifts they proclaim the same gospel. So for most of these churches they are one in the apostolic gospel and it's the Romanist church that separates itself from the apostolic gospel. So if sola scriptura is so destructive why is it that these diverse organizations agree on the gospel but Romanism which denies sola scriptura teaches another gospel?
I thought the point of sola scriptura was simplicity.
That would be a mischaracterization.
...Saint Peter says that in Saint Paul's epistles, "are certain things hard to be understood..."
See that word "certain"? That word has a different meaning than "all". So Peter is saying "some" of Paul's writings are difficult. That would be different than saying "all" of Paul's writings are difficult. Even Peter acknowledges that the simplicity of the gospel is the work of Christ when he tells the church to take account of that fact even if "some" of Paul's writings are difficult.
Don't you mean that YOU failed to find it?
Ah, no. I wrote it. I know exactly what "it's" refers to. If you look to the previous sentence you can find what "it's" refers to. Here's a hint: The same word is used twice thus all or nothing refers to two kinds of uses of that word.
Bibles were written by hand, they cost more than the average person earned in a lifetime, this FACT did not change until the late 15th Century.
Yet the early church still copied those letters and passed them around in their own language until the Romanist Church began prohibiting it. Hmmm.
Actually, it is your responsibility to prove that the Catholic Church IS corrupt.
Have there been corrupt members of the Church? Certainly, there have even been corrupt popes. However, corruption is a natural result of man's sinful nature. This DOES NOT make the Church itself corrupt.
Then you need to take into account that despite the fact that these churches emphasize different gifts they proclaim the same gospel.
Really? Calvinism and Arminianism are proclaiming the same gospel?
So for most of these churches they are one in the apostolic gospel and it's the Romanist church that separates itself from the apostolic gospel.
How has the Catholic Church "separated" itself from the Apostolic Gospel? When PRECISELY did this happen? What was the PRECISE event that marked the separation?
So if sola scriptura is so destructive why is it that these diverse organizations agree on the gospel but Romanism which denies sola scriptura teaches another gospel?
Your question is predicated on two assumptions which YOU must firt prove valid.
See that word "certain"? That word has a different meaning than "all". So Peter is saying "some" of Paul's writings are difficult. That would be different than saying "all" of Paul's writings are difficult. Even Peter acknowledges that the simplicity of the gospel is the work of Christ when he tells the church to take account of that fact even if "some" of Paul's writings are difficult.
First of all, I never said that ALL of Saint Paul's writings were difficult, but let's look a little further at what you wrote in post 1369:
Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter.
So, since you seem to acknowledge that at least "some" of Saint Paul's work is difficult to understand and since you claim that, "what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter," please tell us which specific portions of Saint Paul's epistles are difficult, but "unnecessary" for salvation (please give specific chapters and verses). How PRECISELY is a person to know that these are unnecessary for salvation if they don't actually understand them? What if a person THINKS they understand these sections and it causes them to reach improper conclusions that endanger their salvation?
Ah, no. I wrote it. I know exactly what "it's" refers to. If you look to the previous sentence you can find what "it's" refers to. Here's a hint: The same word is used twice thus all or nothing refers to two kinds of uses of that word.
I don't know if you cut and pasted what you originally wrote in post 1369 or not, but the word it's is very clear. Here's another look:
My goodness. I'm not sure I can simplify this any further. Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter. It's not all or nothing.
My original question was to ask which parts we can omit which is a fairly typical response to someone saying "it's not all or nothing."
Yet the early church still copied those letters and passed them around in their own language until the Romanist Church began prohibiting it. Hmmm.
Really? Which languages were these, please be as specific as possible? Saint Jerome translated the Vulgate in the late 4th Century because Latin had become the lingua franca of western Europe. There was never any prohibition against having them in the original Greek or Hebrew. Do you have a single shred of evidence that a complete and accurate translation of the New Testament existed in any language other than Greek, Latin, Coptic or Syriac, and a few other Eastern or Oriental languages (or POSSIBLY Hebrew or Aramaic) prior to the late Middle Ages? Do you have any evidence that the Coptic Church STOPPED producing Coptic translations or that the other Eastern Church stopped theirs?
All of these conspiracy theories that the Church somehow suppressed translation of the Bible are quite fascinating, but they lack any historical proof and require the person believing them to stipulate to things that are false. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Europeans were illiterate well into the 16th century. The fact remains that Latin was the lingua franca of western Europe in varying degrees until the 18th or 19th century. The fact remains that as soon as languages like English, French and German had actually developed to the point that proper translation was possible, the Bible was translated.