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

[Fidelis]

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.

But don’t you see, ALLFORHIM? That’s the whole point. They say they do. We say they don’t. But who are you (or me, or any individual) to say they are not following the Bible? We can’t all be the authority on who decides what is biblical or what is not. So is there no authority? Does that make sense? Isn’t this a recipe for confusion, anarchy and being at the mercy of the shifting sands of personal interpretation? Is the Holy Spirit the spirit of confusion??

 

[tomch]

In my own recent experience as a Baptist, I don’t think that Protestants really believe “Sola Scriptura” anyway.

I know that my Baptist church tended to bend Scripture around their already-set-in-steel doctrines like “Once Saved Always Saved” and “Believer’s Baptism.”

So it really should be called “Doctrine and Scripture” - and not “Scripture Alone.”

 

[mdcpensive1]

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?

The Catholic Church is universal. I am not sure that it should be called united but I can agree in principle with that with a few qualifications.
First, all Catholics are called to believe the dogmas of the Church. That is primary. However, there are Catholic Theologians who pose questions that are not dogma and not “de fiede” but situations that call for discussion. This is alright as long as it does not violate the defined faith of the Majesterium.

Your question of the Eastern Orthodox Church is one of sadness even though it has a valid priesthood. Someday when issues like the siloquoly (spelling ?) or the cultural/political divisions of former times are no more, then the unity as wished by Christ in John 17 will come to be. Even so, they are called to participate in the Church Councils.

mdcpensive1

 

[ALLFORHIM]

But don’t you see, ALLFORHIM? That’s the whole point. They say they do. We say they don’t. But who are you (or me, or any individual) to say they are not following the Bible? We can’t all be the authority on who decides what is biblical or what is not. So is there no authority? Does that make sense? Isn’t this a recipe for confusion, anarchy and being at the mercy of the shifting sands of personal interpretation? Is the Holy Spirit the spirit of confusion??

Yes I do understand what you are saying. That is why God tells us in the bible to constantly renew our minds daily. When we here something from someone we(as an individual) need to see what scripture says about it. I rely on the Holy Spirit to lead me in the right direction when I ask Him to. I dont always do that That is when I get into trouble.

God tells us to study scripture and to write in on our hearts so we wont sin against him.

We can have all the theological differences in the world but the bottom line is this IMHO:
We need to realize we need a savior–repent–ask forgiveness and accept the free gift of salvation and then we need to live a life worthy of calling ourselves christians. That is it for me:thumbsup: I could debate(well not really because Im not good at it)anyone of you until Im blue in the face and where would that get me in spiritual walk to be more Christ-like----for me nowhere.

I just feel it is not about who is right and who is wrong but whether or not they follow Jesus Christ and live a life worthy of claiming to be a christian.

That is just my :twocents:

 

[ALLFORHIM]

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?

Well, you would have to investigate what they are teaching. There is a systematic way to study the bible.

From what I know about JW’s–if you put their teachings of the bible and plug them into the whole context of the bible–the pieces dont fit. That is good enough for me not to believe them.

If you are strong enough in your faith and study scripture regurlarly(daily)Im sure it becomes easier to spot the fakes(I mean cults) in christianity.

 

[VociMike]

Well, you would have to investigate what they are teaching. There is a systematic way to study the bible.

Are you saying that no “cult” studys the bible in a “systematic way” (whatever that means)? What if I asked them and they said they did study the bible in a systematic way? I betcha that’s what they would say - then what?

From what I know about JW’s–if you put their teachings of the bible and plug them into the whole context of the bible–the pieces dont fit. That is good enough for me not to believe them.

But the pieces fit together for them. As I said, they too can point to scripture for every one of their teachings.

If you are strong enough in your faith and study scripture regurlarly(daily)Im sure it becomes easier to spot the fakes(I mean cults) in christianity.

I bet many of those “cult” members also study scripture every day, but they don’t change their beliefs.

 

[Catholic_Rube]

Yes I do understand what you are saying. That is why God tells us in the bible to constantly renew our minds daily. When we here something from someone we(as an individual) need to see what scripture says about it. I rely on the Holy Spirit to lead me in the right direction when I ask Him to. I dont always do that That is when I get into trouble.

God tells us to study scripture and to write in on our hearts so we wont sin against him.

We can have all the theological differences in the world but the bottom line is this IMHO:
We need to realize we need a savior–repent–ask forgiveness and accept the free gift of salvation and then we need to live a life worthy of calling ourselves christians. That is it for me:thumbsup: I could debate(well not really because Im not good at it)anyone of you until Im blue in the face and where would that get me in spiritual walk to be more Christ-like----for me nowhere.

I just feel it is not about who is right and who is wrong but whether or not they follow Jesus Christ and live a life worthy of claiming to be a christian.

That is just my :twocents:

IMHO and I’m sure you’ll agree with me the Holy Spirit never divides, it always unites, GOD wouldn’t have the Holy Spirit to DIVIDE us all, the Holy Spirit is for us to be UNITED, something Protestants don’t have, also how can two people come to completely different views on Salvation (Saved by Faith, Saved by Faith and Works) if the Holy Spirit is guiding both of them. The Holy Spirit doesn’t DIVIDE it UNITES, that is my humble opinion, what do u guys think???

 

[Church_Militant]

I just feel it is not about who is right and who is wrong but whether or not they follow Jesus Christ and live a life worthy of claiming to be a christian.

That is just my :twocents:

Isn’t the discovery of truth (Remembering that Our Lord said, “I am…the truth…”) a worthy reason for discussion?

One of the worst problems is modern people reading the Word of God without reference to the writings of the early church, who received the faith directly from the apostles and paid for that with their lives. IMO, if what I think a passage infers is different from what they say they were taught by St. John then I have to recognize that they are closer to source than I and give that greater weight than my own modern thinking. It’s like the very best Bible commentary ever.

If truth is absolute then, for the Christian the courageous pursuit of truth is virtually mandated, is it not?
Pax tecum,

 

[JohnnyReb]

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.

That is why I never used the term protestant. I never chose to protest the Catholic church…I have never heard a good answer to this either. Its part of why I am becoming Catholic

 

[kaycee]

IMHO and I’m sure you’ll agree with me the Holy Spirit never divides, it always unites, GOD wouldn’t have the Holy Spirit to DIVIDE us all, the Holy Spirit is for us to be UNITED, something Protestants don’t have, also how can two people come to completely different views on Salvation (Saved by Faith, Saved by Faith and Works) if the Holy Spirit is guiding both of them. The Holy Spirit doesn’t DIVIDE it UNITES, that is my humble opinion, what do u guys think???

The Holy Spirit points to Christ. Unity is not His primary job.

Luke 12:51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

 

[Nancie_Lew]

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:

Have you ever seen the movie “Gaslight” with Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer? In the movie Boyer tries to convince Bergman she is crazy when in truth it is Boyer who is the loon. Same reasoning here. Catholics know if they can make a Protestant doubt (crazy) the Bible there is a pretty good chance they may convert. You wouldn’t have used this title for your thread if you didn’t believe that. You also know that Protestants have more in common with each other than differences. This is why most Protestants are unified against Catholicism because of major differences as opposed to minor differences between Prods.

If the Mass is true why do Catholics have so many different types of Mass and why the bickering over them? A Catholic will claim all of them are right so based on that it comes down to the individual’s preference. Same logic behind Protestantism. When Billy Grahams wife died she died as a Presyberterian not a Baptist like her husband. So what!

 

[Fidelis]

The Holy Spirit points to Christ. Unity is not His primary job.

Luke 12:51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

This passage points to conflicts between believers and non-believers, not between believers.

What does Jesus say about unity?:

20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. (John 17:20-23)

Protestants generally see the multiplicity of sects and denominations as a good thing, even as God’s specific desire. Catholics, remembering Jesus’ prayer, look at the world and see scandal to an unbelieving world caused by prideful individualism.

 

[VociMike]

Have you ever seen the movie “Gaslight” with Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer? In the movie Boyer tries to convince Bergman she is crazy when in truth it is Boyer who is the loon. Same reasoning here. Catholics know if they can make a Protestant doubt (crazy) the Bible there is a pretty good chance they may convert.

This is a silly claim. No Catholic tries to convince anybody to doubt the bible. What we do try to convince people of is that outside the light of the Church one cannot come to an error-free understanding of the bible. And the reality of the “bible-only” world is our best argument.

You wouldn’t have used this title for your thread if you didn’t believe that. You also know that Protestants have more in common with each other than differences. This is why most Protestants are unified against Catholicism because of major differences as opposed to minor differences between Prods.

Bible-only believers disagree on every single major point of theology. They even disagree on the Trinity, and on the divinity of Christ. The only thing bible-only believers have in common is the concept of “bible-only”.

If the Mass is true why do Catholics have so many different types of Mass and why the bickering over them? A Catholic will claim all of them are right so based on that it comes down to the individual’s preference. Same logic behind Protestantism. When Billy Grahams wife died she died as a Presyberterian not a Baptist like her husband. So what!

This discussion is not about the different Catholic rites, but we do not have different “types” of Masses. Every Mass is the same “type”. Every Mass is built around the same theology, and the same sacrificial offering of Christ united with our own offering.

Finding different beliefs in the bible is not about “preferences”. It is about the inability to properly discern the truth contained in the bible. Truth is not a preference.

 

[Fidelis]

Have you ever seen the movie “Gaslight” with Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer? In the movie Boyer tries to convince Bergman she is crazy when in truth it is Boyer who is the loon. Same reasoning here. Catholics know if they can make a Protestant doubt (crazy) the Bible there is a pretty good chance they may convert. You wouldn’t have used this title for your thread if you didn’t believe that.

It isn’t that Catholics are trying to make anyone doubt the Bible, only the twin errors of *Sola Scriptura *and private interpretation.

You also know that Protestants have more in common with each other than differences. This is why most Protestants are unified against Catholicism because of major differences as opposed to minor differences between Prods.

It isn’t the number of differences that divide Protestants that are the issue. As you say, many of these are minor and superficial. But it is the seriousness of the issues that actually do divide them that are the point - issues serious enough to precipitate individuals or whole congregations spinning off to create entirely new denominations.

If the Mass is true why do Catholics have so many different types of Mass and why the bickering over them? A Catholic will claim all of them are right so based on that it comes down to the individual’s preference. Same logic behind Protestantism.

Not quite. The “differences” in Catholic Masses that the small percentage of Catholics “bicker over” are largely of style over substance. The *essence *of all validly celebrated Catholic Masses is exactly the same. This is a lot different than spinning off entirely new denominations.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

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.

You just don’t get it. The reason there are so many protestant denominations is because there is tolerance among us. Contrast that with Catholic reaction against groups like the Albigenses and the Waldensees who were persecuted and killed by your church. The persecution occured long before the Reformation. There has always been disunity within your church just look at the time there were two popes?

Years ago what other alternative was there for people to accept but Catholicism. The Catholic Church had a monopoly on what people were to believe.

 

[Teflon93]

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!

I think you’re confusing “The Hows” with “The Whats” here.

Catholics agree (to an enormous but not perfect extent) on “The Whats”—core tenets of the faith and traditions of the church. “The Hows”—peripheral matters such as whether music is provided by an organist and cantor or by a band—vary according to taste and preference.

The problem with the various Protestant denominations is the list of “The Whats” they agree upon is tiny indeed. It is true that the most important item on any Christian’s list—that Christ is Lord—is agreed upon by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox alike. Christendom has not fractured to the point of rejecting the most important truth in human history, and may she never do so.

 

[SyCarl]

First, how do you know that the Church is an infallible authority apart from the Bible. We can’t trust the Bible without the Church to tell us what the Bible is and what it means. Before we can trust the Bible, we need to know that the Church has the authority to do what it claims. How does the Church establish that authority except by saying so themselves. Reference can be made to Tradition but Tradition is what the Church says it is. How do we know the Church has any authority apart from the Bible?

Even then, if the Church does have the authority it claims, it is merely moving private interpretation one step over. The Church makes an interpretation. You must then interpret that statement to understand what it means. What is a mortal sin? The Church gives a definition. Do you not have to interpret that decide whether you have committed a mortal sin. a venial sin, or no sin at all?

Why is there so much discussion and controversy about Vatican II? The Church made statements through the Council and people have different interpretations of what was said or what was not said. How does infallible authority or interpretation help there?

The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. How many such pronouncements were made prior to Vatican 1? Different Catholics will give different replies. Some say Unam Sanctam was an ex cathedra pronouncement but others disagee. How much certainty is there?

As for groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are more akin to the Catholic Church when it comes to the Bible. They look to The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to tell them what Scripture means.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

This is a silly claim. No Catholic tries to convince anybody to doubt the bible. What we do try to convince people of is that outside the light of the Church one cannot come to an error-free understanding of the bible. And the reality of the “bible-only” world is our best argument.

You know darn well I was talking about Sola Scriptura.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

First, how do you know that the Church is an infallible authority apart from the Bible. We can’t trust the Bible without the Church to tell us what the Bible is and what it means. Before we can trust the Bible, we need to know that the Church has the authority to do what it claims. How does the Church establish that authority except by saying so themselves. Reference can be made to Tradition but Tradition is what the Church says it is. How do we know the Church has any authority apart from the Bible?

Even then, if the Church does have the authority it claims, it is merely moving private interpretation one step over. The Church makes an interpretation. You must then interpret that statement to understand what it means. What is a mortal sin? The Church gives a definition. Do you not have to interpret that decide whether you have committed a mortal sin. a venial sin, or no sin at all?

Why is there so much discussion and controversy about Vatican II? The Church made statements through the Council and people have different interpretations of what was said or what was not said. How does infallible authority or interpretation help there?

The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. How many such pronouncements were made prior to Vatican 1? Different Catholics will give different replies. Some say Unam Sanctam was an ex cathedra pronouncement but others disagee. How much certainty is there?

As for groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are more akin to the Catholic Church when it comes to the Bible. They look to The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to tell them what Scripture means.

Exactly and when Catholic apologists interpret the Catechism of the Church they don’t always agree with each other.

 

[SyCarl]

I think you’re confusing “The Hows” with “The Whats” here.

Catholics agree (to an enormous but not perfect extent) on “The Whats”—core tenets of the faith and traditions of the church. “The Hows”—peripheral matters such as whether music is provided by an organist and cantor or by a band—vary according to taste and preference.

The problem with the various Protestant denominations is the list of “The Whats” they agree upon is tiny indeed. It is true that the most important item on any Christian’s list—that Christ is Lord—is agreed upon by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox alike. Christendom has not fractured to the point of rejecting the most important truth in human history, and may she never do so.

I wonder how you come up with the statement tiny? Are we to be judged by small fringe groups anymore than Catholicism is to be judged by the existence of groups like the sedevacantists? I think that you will find that the overwhleming majority of Protestants agree with the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. Those who don’t we Protestants would not call Protestant. Many of the groups themselves do not call themselves Protestant, such as a number of Baptist groups. It is not proper to basically define as Protestant all who are not Catholic or Orthodox and then say, "Oh look at all the differnences in the group we have arbitrarily defined.