If Sola Scriptura Is True, Why Are There So Many Protestant Denominations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teflon93
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Teflon93

Guest
As a former Protestant and new Catholic, one thing which puzzles me about “sola scriptura” and the reluctance to recognize tradition is how Protestants rationalize the thousands of different denominations all possessing similar (if not identical) Bibles.

So if sola scriptura is true, why are there so many Protestant denominations?
 
I think it’s because when you ask them, they’ll say that everyone else’s interpretation is mistaken.

Is that too sarcastic? 😉
 
They’ll say they are united in the essentials. In the first place, they don’t say how those essentials are arrived at, and in the second place they aren’t united even in those essentials. Some sola Scriptura-ists don’t believe in the Trinity, for example, or in the divinity of Christ.
 
As a former Protestant and new Catholic, one thing which puzzles me about “sola scriptura” and the reluctance to recognize tradition is how Protestants rationalize the thousands of different denominations all possessing similar (if not identical) Bibles.

So if sola scriptura is true, why are there so many Protestant denominations?
Because they think that if they re-invent the wheel enough, it will be rounder??? I have never heard a good answer to this one. The born-agains say that they are Christian and do not belong to a denomination. Most of the protestants don’t even know what it is they are protesting anymore.

Any non-Catholics out there to enlighten us?
 
Hi,
This is from Gotquestions.org–you may not agree with what they say but it gives you an answer to your question.

Why are there so many Christian denominations?

Question: “Why are there so many Christian denominations?”

Answer: To answer this question, we must first differentiate between 1) denominations within the body of Christ and 2) non-Christian cults and false religions. Presbyterians and Lutherans are Christian denominations; Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are “Christian” cults; Islam and Shintoism are entirely separate religions.

The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to “reform” the Roman Catholic church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries. The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with “methods” for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as: the method of baptism; the availability of Lord’s supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; the role works play in salvation; pretribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the “sign” gifts in the modern era, and the list could go on and on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original “mainline” denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: we, as believers, must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is great deal of latitude in how a Christian should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different “flavors” of Christianity. The Presbyterian Church of Mbale, Uganda, has a style of worship much different from the Presbyterian Church of Denver, but their doctrinal stand is the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

When looking for a church, the believer should start with its Statement of Faith. What that church believes and practices should be in line with the doctrines of faith as outlined by the Bible. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, the authority of the Bible is the governing truth, the sufficiency of Scripture is affirmed, where we can grow in our relationships with the Lord, where we can minister to the body with our spiritual gifts, spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually.
 
When looking for a church, the believer should start with its Statement of Faith. What that church believes and practices should be in line with the doctrines of faith as outlined by the Bible. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, the authority of the Bible is the governing truth, the sufficiency of Scripture is affirmed, where we can grow in our relationships with the Lord, where we can minister to the body with our spiritual gifts, spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually.
Thanks for posting this, although the last bit seems to undermine the sufficiency argument of sola scriptura. After all, why do we need to do anything of the sort?
 
Thanks for posting this, although the last bit seems to undermine the sufficiency argument of sola scriptura. After all, why do we need to do anything of the sort?
Hi,
Your welcome:thumbsup:

I think the last paragraph is not only saying that we should find a church that follows scripture but also that we need to be in fellowship with other believers. I dont think it is an either/or argument but that we need both.🤷 Of course I didnt write the article that is just how Im reading it.😉
 
That’s a question I always used to have. Some believe you don’t have to be baptized, but others believes you do. Some teach that you can lose your salvation, while others teach once saved always saved. These positions are all supported by various scripture, but they’re mutually exclusive positions, and they concern salvation. Each side has no more reason to believe their interpretation is anymore correct than the other. I just mention these two issues, since they’re both related to eternal salvation or damnation. I finally came to the conclusion that there’s no way a truly loving God would leave only a book that everybody had to intrepret for themselves. It basically boils down to people reading the Bible and figuring out what they think it means, and then they either look for a church that teaches what that person already believes, or they go and start their own church.
 
One Protestant “scholar” that I know says that the denominations allow “unity with diversity.”

He believes that God intended for the Church to split into many different denominations to allow people to find a place where they fit in.

He claims that some people are more emotional and passionate, and these people fit in best with a Pentecostal denom. Some people are more studious and intellectual, and these people are often more comfortable in Calvinist denoms. and so on.

He said that basically all the Christian denoms, including Catholicism, believe in Jesus Christ, and that’s the important thing. All the rest is just stuff that man has created to feel more comfortable.

Now–lest you all scoff and guffaw, it seems to me that there is a little of this in Catholicism.

There are the Latin Mass people, who love the chants and candles and incense and ancient traditions. There are the “ethnic” Mass people, who love the traditions of the nation, e.g., Hispanic Masses rich in music, or “polka Masses” of the Polish. There are the “folk” people who love guitars and folk songs. There are the Life Teen Mass people, who like rock music, bass guitars, and amps.

And there’s me!–who likes ALL kinds of Masses, as long as they are valid and Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament!

And apparently (I’ve just learned this recently), there are Catholic groups who are not quite in communion with Rome, but still consider themselves to be true Catholics. Some of these groups claim that the practices of other Catholics are “from the pit of hell.” (I’ve been reading some of the links posted in the Traditional Section of this Forum!) To me this sounds like what Protestants do, claiming that others are “wrong.”

So I think we need to be careful not to be too disparaging of the many different Protestant factions. We kinda sorta have them in our own Church!
 
Cat, it is one thing liking rock music more than Gregorian chant and it is something else disagreeing on whether baptism is necessary for salvation.

You simple cannot confuse The Truth with worship style preferences.
 
He said that basically all the Christian denoms, including Catholicism, believe in Jesus Christ, and that’s the important thing. All the rest is just stuff that man has created to feel more comfortable.
Even Muslims “believe in” Jesus Christ.
 
Answer: To answer this question, we must first differentiate between 1) denominations within the body of Christ and 2) non-Christian cults and false religions. Presbyterians and Lutherans are Christian denominations; Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are “Christian” cults
Who gets to decide who’s Christian and who’s a cult? Why are some “bible-only” groups called Christian and others called cults (obviously Mormons are not “bible-only”, but they do not deny the inspiration of the bible).

This boils down once again to some invented list of “essentials”. Believe in them and you’re Christian, otherwise you’re not. But where did this list of “essentials” come from? Who approved it? How do we know it’s correct in both commission and omission?
 
Who gets to decide who’s Christian and who’s a cult? Why are some “bible-only” groups called Christian and others called cults (obviously Mormons are not “bible-only”, but they do not deny the inspiration of the bible).

This boils down once again to some invented list of “essentials”. Believe in them and you’re Christian, otherwise you’re not. But where did this list of “essentials” come from? Who approved it? How do we know it’s correct in both commission and omission?
So you are saying that JW and Mormons are christians?:confused:
 
So you are saying that JW and Mormons are christians?:confused:
What is a Christian? Is it not a follower of Christ? I’m saying many such groups are sola scriptura, and asking how, according to sola scriptura, one gets to say that fellow SS’ers are not Christian?
 
So you are saying that JW and Mormons are christians?:confused:
Not at all. But both groups owe their origin and foundation to the premise of “the Bible Alone” and it’s necessary corollary, private interpretation.

Strictly speaking, if they say their faiths are based on the Bible, who’s to say they are wrong, and with what authority can they say it? :confused:
 
Well, I guess the mere fact that they are not following what the bible teaches is enough for me to say they are not christians.

Im not sure about JW but the Mormons are not bible alone followers.

Im logging off for the night. I may not respond to you for awhile because Im going away in a couple of days.😃

Anyway, I gave an answer to the OP whether you guys agree or not with it so be it.🤷 Im not here to debate SS because it has been done to death:banghead: Im not interested in going down that road or going in circles. If you know what I mean;) It’s exhausting and pointless:shrug:
Have a great evening:thumbsup:
 
Well, I guess the mere fact that they are not following what the bible teaches is enough for me to say they are not christians.
Leaving out the Mormons, how can you say another group is not following what the bible teaches, when they can open up the bible and point to scripture that supports their teachings?
 
A better question is whether or not the Catholic “unity” really counts for anything. Firstly, there are as many differing opinions in your typical Catholic church as there are between non-Catholic denominations. The reason then why there is only one catholic “teaching” is because there is only one teaching by definition. A priest isn’t allowed to have an interpretation other than what he’s been told to believe. I know many priests that disagree with official Catholic teaching on a variety of topics, but there is still only one Catholic teaching on any issue because by definition there’s only allowed to be one official teaching on any issue. Here’s an interesting tidbit for thought: the eastern orthodox church believes in the exact same tradition as the Catholic church, but they disagree completely when it comes to the Papacy (a rather important issue).

The moral of the story, I think, is that the apparent “unity” in the Catholic church really doesn’t count for much because the Catholic church doesn’t allow for official disagreement. You can’t just sit back on this issue and point fingers.
 
Well, to the extent that individual Catholics do not accept Church doctrines, they are to that extent not fully Catholic. The issue with denominationalism is that each denomination as an official church body has its own doctrine. If members don’t accept the doctrine they will leave to join another denomination, or even to start their own.

Some Catholics accept Church doctrine, but just don’t practice it. And some reject Church doctrine but refuse to leave the Church, for whatever reason.

As for unity within diversity, we certainly have that. Followers of the tridentine Mass don’t believe different doctrines than those who prefer a Novus Ordo Mass with guitar accompaniment, they just like a different style of worship. The Mass itself is the same. And if you’ve ever attended a primarily black Catholic parish–yes, there are such things–the differences in style are striking.
 
I think you missed my point still. There can’t be disagreements in the Catholic church because the Catholic church is, by definition, united. It’s pretty moot to talk about disunity in the non-Catholic religions when even a Catholic priest is not allowed to disagree with someone “higher up”. The Catholic church is united not because it is united, but because it has defined itself to be.

Putting aside the matter of parishoners, what about the eastern orthodox church? You both claim the same Tradition, and yet you have both come to the exact opposite conclusion when it comes to the Pope. If Tradition is infallible, then why do you disagree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top