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

[Nancie_Lew]

.

Wow, thousands of Protestants find fault with the Church because they claim that Catholic doctrine has changed, and now you find fault with us because it hasn’t.

So is this an admission that Catholic doctrine has changed throughout the centuries?

 

[Teflon93]

So is this an admission that Catholic doctrine has changed throughout the centuries?

What do you mean by doctrine?

Church teaching has changed over time—the newest Catechism was issued at John Paul II’s behest in 1994 and was largely led by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Why wouldn’t Church teaching change over time? Catholics live in the real world, you know. With 2000 years of tradition we may change slowly and deliberately, but we do change.

Much to the dismay of some of us…

 

[estesbob]

And I ask how do we know that Jesus gave it to the Church except that the Church says He did? That hardly establishes authority, telling yourself you have it.

Actually Jesus says it . And you yourslef accepth the Authority of the Vhurch everytime you open your bible/

And let me make one thing quite clear. I am not anti-Catholic. My in-laws are Catholic and we attend Mass with them whenever we visit.

Good -perhaps we’ll get you to come home!

When I married my wife I did a lot of looking into Catholicism as I was marrying a Catholic. I bought the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I visited Catholic Apologetic sites. I read Papal Enyclicals and Church councils. I started to read the church fathers.

I wanted to understand her Church. It turns out much of she thought was Catholic doctrine was mistaken. She still declares that purgatory was done away with in the 1990’s. She thought the Immaculate Conception meant the virgin birth. She was utterly disgusted with the Church and had fallen away. Her parents were happy to see her become Protestant because they saw her believing again and trusting God and Jesus. I am saying this so you don’t think that I am anti-Catholic.

The fact that your wife was poorly cathecised is hardly a reason to reject the Church.

I only quote certain church fathers. I have found others quoted elsewhere but don’t use them because I have checked the entire writing the quote was taken from. Many I can’t find and many appear taken out of context. I won’t use those.

do not say that the Traditions of the Church may not be true. There were many things that were not recodred. John tells us this. But he also tells us that what he wrote would allow us to believe and through believing have life. I feel the Bible tells us everything we need. I take seriously the Lord’s comments about the traditions of men. Did not the Pharisees think that they had true traditions? They were part of the institutional church of their time.

We are not talking about the traditions of men. We are talking about the teachngs and tradtions of the Church founded by Christ. Teachinsg that have been consistent for 2,000m years and were generally accpeted by all Christians for 1,500 years.

I

do not trust tradition because I think that men have used it to increase their own power.I am not saying that is what the Church is doing now but I do think it was a motive of some of what was done in the past.

You do not turst traditon but you trust the Doctirnes unheard of for the first 1,500 years of Chrisitianity? You do not trust tradition yet trust your personal interperation of Scripture the consitent teachings of the Church and over the wtiring od those who were closest to the time Christ walked the earth?

Since your interpertaion is at conflicyt with millions of other Protestants should that not be a hint that something is worng?

What I see is a human institution that imposed requirements to insure the necessity of relying on them. You need the priest for baptism and confession and communion. You need the bishop for confirmation. You need us to rescue your loved ones who are in purgatory. Only we can tell you what Scripture means. Only we can reveal Tradition. I cannot accept many things from Tradition because I do not see them in Scripture. I can see the two natures of Christ in Scripture. I can see the Trinity in Scripture even if the word is not used. I cannot accept Traditions because many took more than 1000 years before they were defined conclusively, many at Trent in response to the Reformation and others even later.

The Church is not a human insititution. Christ and his Church are one in the same. Christ established his Church to save us the worry of having to figure everything out on our own. i am not restricted by my Church-i am freed to more fully understand the Truth-not condemned to spend a lifetime trying to parse scripture out to figure out what my personal interpetation of the Truth is.

 

[Salamander]

Because men change, God does not change His Word. The Bible is sufficient unto salvation, first to the Jew and then the Greek. “His love surpasses knowledge”. 1 Cor. 1:21 *For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. *

 

[Black_Knight]

Because men change, God does not change His Word. The Bible is sufficient unto salvation, first to the Jew and then the Greek. “His love surpasses knowledge”. 1 Cor. 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

I’m sorry but you just messed up as to what St. Paul actually says there…

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.

Nowhere does that even remotely imply that he is referring to the Bible, since the Gospel was preached orally at that time and the New Testament as we have it today did not exist yet so your statement is not accurate.

 

[SyCarl]

Actually Jesus says it . And you yourslef accepth the Authority of the Vhurch everytime you open your bible/

This is pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. How do know that Jesus says it? Because the Bible says so? But by your own statement we don’t have a Bible until the Church uses its authority. So the Church’s authority cannot depend on the Bible because the Church must have the authority first. So we are left with Tradition. But no one knows Tradition except the Church. So what we have is the Church saying it has the authority. That proves nothing. Why do you believe the Church? Because you have faith in it? Well and good. I have faith in the Bible as God’s word.

Good -perhaps we’ll get you to come home!

I am at home as is anyone who believes in and trusts Jesus, no matter what visible organization they belong to.

The fact that your wife was poorly cathecised is hardly a reason to reject the Church.

She had become disillusioned even before we met. She studied for a year to become a nun and said she found out that the Church did not believe what they were teaching the laity. She said that they were lying to them. She now believes that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. She believes that individual Catholics are devout and sincere believers but are deceived. I do not know where she got this. It was not from me or our church.

We are not talking about the traditions of men. We are talking about the teachngs and tradtions of the Church founded by Christ. Teachinsg that have been consistent for 2,000m years and were generally accpeted by all Christians for 1,500 years.

Again you assume the authority of the Church only on its say so. Should we believe Mohammed because he says he had a revelation from God? Then why should we believe that the Church has authority because it says so? Without Scripture we only have the Church telling us what it says Jesus said, which is not really any different from what Mohammed said. We have no way of knowing what parts of Tradition, if any, came from Jesus or the Apostles.

You do not turst traditon but you trust the Doctirnes unheard of for the first 1,500 years of Chrisitianity? You do not trust tradition yet trust your personal interperation of Scripture the consitent teachings of the Church and over the wtiring od those who were closest to the time Christ walked the earth?

Since your interpertaion is at conflicyt with millions of other Protestants should that not be a hint that something is worng?

My interpretation agrees with millions of Protestants. What seems clearer the more I study is that differences are primarily the result of men wanting to know more than God has revealed. It has to do with human pride. We want to know everything and feel we have a right to know everything. If God doesn’t tell us everything we speculate and then find passages or reasons to justify our speculations.

As for believing doctrines that were unheard of for the first 1500 years I quite disagree with you, as I do that the Catholic Church’s doctrines have been consistent for 2000 years. I have found many church fathers who say things supportive of Protestant doctrines or do not support Catholic doctrine.

I think that the most that can be said of the early witnesses is that they are distinctly ambiguous… I do not have time this evening but I can put together a sample of what I have found later. I do know that Calvin drew heavily on Augustine although I have only read part of Calvin’s Institutes.

The Church is not a human insititution. Christ and his Church are one in the same. Christ established his Church to save us the worry of having to figure everything out on our own. i am not restricted by my Church-i am freed to more fully understand the Truth-not condemned to spend a lifetime trying to parse scripture out to figure out what my personal interpetation of the Truth is.

I think this is a primary matter of dispute. The visible Churches are indeed human institutions. The true Church is the body of all believers and is invisible. If you go into any church, Protestant or Catholic, I would challenge you to show me one person who you could definitely say was a member of Christ’s Church because the true Church is Christ’s body and it is spiritual. Only God knows who belongs to it since only God knows what a person truly believes. Can you even say what the bishop of your own diocese truly believes? Were not many bishops Arians? We know this from what they said. But how many who didn’t say anything might also have been Arians? If it is impossible to show who is a member of the true body, how can we say that the visible church is anything but a human institution? Those human institutions may contain members of the true body, just as members of the true body may not be in any institution at all.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Hi Philthy, you have been posting well again. I enjoy reading your answers to those who have a strange understanding of scripture and the Church.
Someone posted way back that a book sale had many protestant books. It would make me wonder what truth those books speak since there is no objective truth standard to hold it up to, such as we have in the Church. (at least those with a nihil obstat)

mdcpensive1

 

[Philthy]

"VociMike:

Wow, thousands of Protestants find fault with the Church because they claim that Catholic doctrine has changed, and now you find fault with us because it hasn’t.

So is this an admission that Catholic doctrine has changed throughout the centuries?

Hi Nancy -

This is not an admission of anything - that is an error of logic on your part to suggest that it is.
It is simply an exasperating recognition that MOST Protestants criticize Catholicism because they believe Catholic doctrine has changed with time and while YOU, a Protestant, are now claiming that Catholic doctrine has remainded constant and yet STILL find fault with it. It exasperating to deal with such irrational, un-unified, arbitrary assessments - repeatedly.
It is simple errors of logic like this one which completely destroy any credibility in the sola scriptura concept of private interpretation. I mean, if you can’t make a logical deduction from the information presented - in your native language, from your own time period, and within your own culture, how can you possibly hope to get the complete gospel message straight from a message written 2000 years ago?

 

[Teflon93]

Hi Nancy -

This is not an admission of anything - that is an error of logic on your part to suggest that it is.
It is simply an exasperating recognition that MOST Protestants criticize Catholicism because they believe Catholic doctrine has changed with time and while YOU, a Protestant, are now claiming that Catholic doctrine has remainded constant and yet STILL find fault with it. It exasperating to deal with such irrational, un-unified, arbitrary assessments - repeatedly.
It is simple errors of logic like this one which completely destroy any credibility in the sola scriptura concept of private interpretation. I mean, if you can’t make a logical deduction from the information presented - in your native language, from your own time period, and within your own culture, how can you possibly hope to get the complete gospel message straight from a message written 2000 years ago?

I honestly think that this is a result of critical thinking skills no longer being taught in school. (That’s not an insult; it’s an observation).

I’m an engineer, so we must of necessity proceed step-by-step from premise to conclusion and show our work. What we’re seeing much of the time here is a conclusion presented, no listing of underlying assumptions, no logical reasoning between premise and conclusion. Many times the most you see is disjointed Scripture passages interspersed between.

Now, people get offended when you question their logic, but it isn’t an insult—it’s a statement of fact. If you say that “Because A is true Z must be true” but don’t lay out B-Y, you’re not so much protecting your argument as not making an argument at all but merely stating your opinion.

No one is questioning your right to believe anything at all you like; I think the purpose of the forum is to present arguments for and against the Catholic faith. If you don’t have logical reasoning in your toolkit, you’re not really doing anything of the sort and probably frustrating everyone who does to boot.

 

[Salamander]

I’m sorry but you just messed up as to what St. Paul actually says there…

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.

Nowhere does that even remotely imply that he is referring to the Bible, since the Gospel was preached orally at that time and the New Testament as we have it today did not exist yet so your statement is not accurate.

"From Biblelessons.com

The Word of God Given Orally and in Writing

The apostles soon began delivering God’s will both by oral teaching and preaching and by writing. Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 said, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” Paul wrote letters to several churches and stated that they should be read publicly when the Christians assembled (1 Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians 4:16). Early historical records indicate that apostolic writings (along with OT writings) were indeed read in the assemblies on a regular basis.

Peter, in 2 Peter 3:1-2 said, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.” Likewise, Paul said, “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment” (1 Corinthians 14:37).

In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to the writing of Paul, and it is significant that he calls Paul’s writings “Scripture.” It is true that, in the early church, the term “Scripture” was generally used to refer to that of the Old Testament. But notice that Peter categorized the writings of Paul in the same class as “the rest of the Scriptures,” thus indicating that the inspired writings of Paul were also to be regarded as truthful and authoritative Scripture."

The letters from the Apostles, Jesus’ vessels to spread the “Gospel”, were sent out on paper to churches, copies distributed, and read aloud in synagogues, house-to-house, and in jails…so don’t tell me it was only “oral tradition”. Bull dodgers! And one more thing. I don’t see “Pope” listed in the Bible. (I know, go ahead and say it, “here we go again”.)

 

[mdcpensive1]

Hello SyCarl

I am mdcpensive1 and I have been reading some of your posts lately. I can see that you have been very open in your comments and I hope we can both enjoy the sharing and learn from each other.
A problem I see in many of these posts is that so many issues are talked about in one post it is hard to respond properly. I will try to keep mine short.

I do believe that there is a visible Church which is just not brick and mortar. It is the institution that Christ started to guide us on our way. The Church is the means of our salvation through our faith and nurses us along as we cooperate with Christ’s graces. I believe it is visible because Christ has done this in the past. He wants a visible presence that people can see to help lead them home. This had been done for Israel through the temple and the Davidic Covenant. The nations were to see the belief in the God of the universe and know where to find him. Jews will testify to the belief that God resided in the temple. The Israelits were to have faith and believe in the one God. They in turn were to be blessed and protected (hence the request that Solomon not gather chariots and horses = items to make war).

The universal Church today is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and is the everlasting Covenant. This institution is just not a group of people who have similar beliefs, but a dynamic living institution that is leading us to Christ with its authority in a particular place in Italy.

mdcpensive1