Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[alwayswill]

We see this running narrative in the NT about unity. John 17:21

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

John 10:16 Jesus mentions ONE flock, not 20-30,000 flocks

Here is what I saw in protestant churches - too many cooks in the kitchen and everybody is essentially the same rank.

Everybody has a bible and a infallible interpretation of that bible(or so they believe) and so many of them think they are appointed to tell others how to live their lives. And so the inevitable occurs, people get hurt and either leave the church, or worse, start another church. And since this is not apostolic faith founded by the Lord, the pastors sometimes do not know how to properly handle these disputes. And i think that is because 1.) They don’t know how much, if any, REAL authority they actually have and 2.) Everyone’s interpretation of the bible seems to carry the same weight. And there is nothing else to appeal to if we both pray about it and come up with different ideas.

This is not a knock on protestant pastors. I respect them a great deal and personally I think they have a very tough job, maybe even tougher than priests because they usually have families to attend to and more disputes to deal with. It IS, however, a knock on the environment created by sola scriptura, though.

Apostolic churches have their issues but this usually isn’t one of them. A group of 100 million Sergeants combined is still outranked by 1 General. They know that when the church speaks, that’s it. You can bite your tongue or go be a protestant, but you cant overrun the pillar and foundation of truth.

So yes, you need doctrinal harmony and overall harmony as a unit.

And in regards to “bible alone” faith, Catholics are always hearing that their beliefs about Mary or Purgatory or whatever, is not spelled out for them in the bible, therefore, they aren’t true. But no where in the bible does it say that all Christian truths are found only in the bible. This is a mindset, a assumption. I understand why they do it, but the bible has not instructed them to do it. The bible also points them to a visible and authoritative the church, if they care enough to look.

I have re -read your post three times now:

I’m am still not sure of your answer to this:

When you say “unity”: do you mean unity in teaching (non- contradicting doctrines) or to you mean unity in beliefs (every one interprets doctrines the same way)?

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Why would you think that? Lutherans could say, "I think that ALL western Christians, including Catholics, should have a western ecumenical, and do the same as you’ve listed above.
Then all of you could approach the ILC for a council. Perhaps that’s what the Eastern Orthodox Christians are waiting for from those of us in the west.

=Topper17;13703777]
OK, I made a proposal, one which I think would actually work IF everyone could put aside their differences long enough to consider it. You don’t like my proposal I guess, unless the ILC could be in charge, which I guess is natural for an ILC member to think.

It is remarkable how you concluded that this is what I want, from what I wrote, which was, that I consider the proposal polemical nonsense. It is no more plausible for the ILC than for the Catholic Church to stand by and wait for other communions to come to a unity first.
The fact is that no one communion has a leadership role if it is truly an ecumenical dialogue. A truly ecumenical dialogue assumes that the parties are equals in the discussion.

First of all Jon, there is absolutely no polemical nonsense. I believe that if nothing else, discussing the specifics as to any of these kinds of proposals will be helpful in achieving that unity, even if we eventually chose to pursue it in a different manner. I am FAR more interested in achieving the desired results than I am in the means, but by the same token, also believe that actually discussing the means, the specifics of such an effort can only help us achieve our goal.

Assuming that is the case, then you recognize that it is Church leaders, not anonymous and not-so-anonymous (Dave knows my first name, too ) lay apologists on an internet forum, that make these kinds of decisions. And in fact they are making those kinds of decisions, and providing numerous official documents stating the level of agreement and areas that need more study and dialogue, as PeterJ has been hinting at.

I will suggest to you though that if you have any intentions of healing the wounds to unity that have separated you from the LWF, you probably should not refer to them as ‘wayward siblings’. That in fact, to me at least, seems sort of “polemical”.

Two thoughts.

1. 
2. Considering the way you talk about Luther and Lutherans, this is incredibly ironic.

I am not sure I understand this remark.

You said, “As outlandish as this might sound to a lot of people, I personally don’t think that there is ANY WAY to reunite Christianity short of such a radical step.”
Your negative view of how the Catholic Church along with other communions such as mine conduct dialogue, seems counter to the Vat II ecumenical approach.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13703777]
BTW, personally, I think that this proposed Ecumenical Council would be best attained in stages. All Lutherans would meet in their own Council, heal their divisions doctrinally first. All Calvinists would do the same and on and on. And then ALL of the healed groups could meet together with the Orthodox and Roman Catholics in one Council, with each committing to abide and teach the doctrinal formulations achieved by the consensus. Criticize me if you must, but my personal opinion is that this process would have the best chance of achieving unity. Of course, everyone would have to be committed to potentially altering their doctrines to match up with those that the Holy Spirit would instill into the Council decisions.

Yeah, this is the polemical nonsense I was talking about. As you can see, the PCPCU is perfectly capable of carrying on dialogue with different groups, as is the ILC, and the LWF, and a number of others. Keep in mind, of course, the the LCMS and the ELCA have a regular dialogue ongoing. The same is true between the LCMS and the WELS, and the LCMS and the ACNA. Consider the fact that there has been far more improvement between Lutheranism and Catholicism across the board over the last 50 years, and one will recognize that the theologians’ approach to dialogue, which is mutual respect and not attacking each other, is working far better than the pre-Vat II approach still practiced by some apologists on both sides.

Anyway, that’s my personal opinion and I think I have the right to express it.

Absolutely!

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Lent,

Thanks for your response.

I trust Martignoni as I have researched much of his claims and they have always been substantiated.

I trust John also.

As a matter of fact, if the officially sanctioned number of Protestant denominations was 20,000 – 30,000 in 1999 and that CA tract was given the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR, well then, that 1999 is pretty solid as an official estimate. Let’s say it was 25,000 in 1999, midway between the 20 and 30K numbers.

As indicated in the EWTN article that Always posted, there is a formula for updating that 25,000number. It involves establishing the frequency in which the number of denominations double. If denominalization increases at the same rate, then a very good estimate can be established for any moment in time.

For this ‘problem’, and that is exactly what it is, when you run the math, that frequency ends up being 32.99 years. This figure is arrived at as follows:

In order for a doubling to reach 25,000 in the 482 years between 1517 and 1999, the date of the CA tract, there would have to be 14.61 “doublings”. In fact, 2 to the 14.61th power is 25,006. 482 years divided by 14.61 = 32.99 years (33 years).

In order to update the Church Approved CA estimates of 1999 to 2016, we need to apply the following:

In the 17 years since 1999, we have gone 51.5% of the way through a 33 year cycle. This means that in order to update the 1999 figure of 25,000 denominations, we should multiply it b a factor of 2 to the 1.51th power, which mean an increase of 1.424 over the 1999 figure. This would result in a accurate updated and current figure of 35,600 denominations, give or take a few.

In addition, we should also apply that same 1.424 factor to the 270 additional denominations per year. This would result in 384 new denominations each year or 7.4 new denominations per week, rather than the 5 and 5.2 that we discussed earlier.

If the CA tract, which was an NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR approved estimate from 1999 were updated to 2016, it is certain that the new numbers would be roughly 35,600 denominations total and almost 7.4 new ones per week.

As such, the CA Tract entitled: The Great Heresies, 1999, in the subsection under Protestantism should be updated to read: “there are approximately 30,000 to 40,000 denominations, with 408 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.”

I know that the number of denominations and the rate at which this doctrinal dissention occurs is the subject of much debate. Given the quality of the CA tracts and the official seal of approval that this tract attained, it seems that the figures above represent the current state of affairs as well as can be determined.

God Bless, Topper

 

[alwayswill]

Hi Lent,

Thanks for your response.

I trust John also.

As a matter of fact, if the officially sanctioned number of Protestant denominations was 20,000 – 30,000 in 1999 and that CA tract was given the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR, well then, that 1999 is pretty solid as an official estimate. Let’s say it was 25,000 in 1999, midway between the 20 and 30K numbers.

As indicated in the EWTN article that Always posted, there is a formula for updating that 25,000number. It involves establishing the frequency in which the number of denominations double. If denominalization increases at the same rate, then a very good estimate can be established for any moment in time.

For this ‘problem’, and that is exactly what it is, when you run the math, that frequency ends up being 32.99 years. This figure is arrived at as follows:

In order for a doubling to reach 25,000 in the 482 years between 1517 and 1999, the date of the CA tract, there would have to be 14.61 “doublings”. In fact, 2 to the 14.61th power is 25,006. 482 years divided by 14.61 = 32.99 years (33 years).

In order to update the Church Approved CA estimates of 1999 to 2016, we need to apply the following:

In the 17 years since 1999, we have gone 51.5% of the way through a 33 year cycle. This means that in order to update the 1999 figure of 25,000 denominations, we should multiply it b a factor of 2 to the 1.51th power, which mean an increase of 1.424 over the 1999 figure. This would result in a accurate updated and current figure of 35,600 denominations, give or take a few.

In addition, we should also apply that same 1.424 factor to the 270 additional denominations per year. This would result in 384 new denominations each year or 7.4 new denominations per week, rather than the 5 and 5.2 that we discussed earlier.

If the CA tract, which was an NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR approved estimate from 1999 were updated to 2016, it is certain that the new numbers would be roughly 35,600 denominations total and almost 7.4 new ones per week.

As such, the CA Tract entitled: The Great Heresies, 1999, in the subsection under Protestantism should be updated to read: “there are approximately 30,000 to 40,000 denominations, with 408 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.”

I know that the number of denominations and the rate at which this doctrinal dissention occurs is the subject of much debate. Given the quality of the CA tracts and the official seal of approval that this tract attained, it seems that the figures above represent the current state of affairs as well as can be determined.

God Bless, Topper

This has been around the web for a few years: linked on various PRO-Catholic sites
Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn’t Use
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2243954/posts

The very first point that they make is
(quoted in its entirety)​

1. Do not allege that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. This tally comes from the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia, and it includes all denominations and paradenominations which self-identify as Christian, including Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Old Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Gnostics, Bogomils, etc. And even so, the number is too high. The World Christian Encyclopedia artificially inflates the number of Catholic “denominations” by counting Eastern Churches in communion with Rome as separate denominations. It likewise inflates the number of Eastern Orthodox “denominations” by counting Churches in communion with each other as distinct.

This reference lists 8,973 denominations under the heading “Protestant,” and 22,146 more under the heading “Independent.” Some, but not all, of the “independent” denominations may justly be described as Protestant. Still, these numbers may be inflated similarly to the numbers for Catholics and Orthodox. Suffice it to say that there are thousands of Protestant denominations.

Moreover, even if we could arrive at an accurate tally for Protestant denominations (20,000?), we still could not blame the whole of that number on Sola Scriptura. Some of these churches share substantial unity in faith, even if they are juridically independent (perhaps due to geography). And much of the disunity of faith within Protestantism, at least in the developed world, stems from efforts to subordinate the authority of Scripture (e.g., to various sexual perversions). In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower. It bears emphasizing: the only thing for which we can directly blame Sola Scriptura is the extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals to those who sincerely adhere to it, e.g., “orthodox” Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc.​

And if you go to the linked url:

note #8

 

[commenter]

Yeah, this is the polemical nonsense I was talking about. As you can see, the PCPCU is perfectly capable of carrying on dialogue with different groups, as is the ILC, and the LWF, and a number of others. Keep in mind, of course, the the LCMS and the ELCA have a regular dialogue ongoing. The same is true between the LCMS and the WELS, and the LCMS and the ACNA. Consider the fact that there has been far more improvement between Lutheranism and Catholicism across the board over the last 50 years, and one will recognize that the theologians’ approach to dialogue, which is mutual respect and not attacking each other, is working far better than the pre-Vat II approach still practiced by some apologists on both sides.

Jon

Agree with above; in the bolded, I would insert the words “parts of” before the word “Lutheranism”, but modifying only the word “Lutheranism”.

• number of Catholic apologists throwing around the famous 33,000 figure:
  3218 apologists using it
• number of Protestants who, hearing that 33,000 figure, now say “My gosh! 33,000? I thought it was only 10,000, at most. Learning this new data leads me to reconsider Protestantism as inherently fragmentary, and to explore the united Magisterium as my new guidance”.

zero Protestants reacting to this flash of insight to see Catholicism in favorable light

 

[GKC]

This has been around the web for a few years: linked on various PRO-Catholic sites
Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn’t Use
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2243954/posts

The very first point that they make is
(quoted in its entirety)​

1. Do not allege that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. This tally comes from the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia, and it includes all denominations and paradenominations which self-identify as Christian, including Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Old Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Gnostics, Bogomils, etc. And even so, the number is too high. The World Christian Encyclopedia artificially inflates the number of Catholic “denominations” by counting Eastern Churches in communion with Rome as separate denominations. It likewise inflates the number of Eastern Orthodox “denominations” by counting Churches in communion with each other as distinct.

This reference lists 8,973 denominations under the heading “Protestant,” and 22,146 more under the heading “Independent.” Some, but not all, of the “independent” denominations may justly be described as Protestant. Still, these numbers may be inflated similarly to the numbers for Catholics and Orthodox. Suffice it to say that there are thousands of Protestant denominations.

Moreover, even if we could arrive at an accurate tally for Protestant denominations (20,000?), we still could not blame the whole of that number on Sola Scriptura. Some of these churches share substantial unity in faith, even if they are juridically independent (perhaps due to geography). And much of the disunity of faith within Protestantism, at least in the developed world, stems from efforts to subordinate the authority of Scripture (e.g., to various sexual perversions). In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower. It bears emphasizing: the only thing for which we can directly blame Sola Scriptura is the extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals to those who sincerely adhere to it, e.g., “orthodox” Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc.​

And if you go to the linked url:

note #8

And, as has oft been quoted, the WCE/WCT has a particular, idiosyncratic definition of denomination:

“Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.”

When counting and comparing things, a consistent definition of the things being counted is essential.

 

[JonNC]

Agree with above; in the bolded, I would insert the words “parts of” before the word “Lutheranism”, but modifying only the word “Lutheranism”.

• number of Catholic apologists throwing around the famous 33,000 figure:
  3218 apologists using it
• number of Protestants who, hearing that 33,000 figure, now say “My gosh! 33,000? I thought it was only 10,000, at most. Learning this new data leads me to reconsider Protestantism as inherently fragmentary, and to explore the united Magisterium as my new guidance”.

zero Protestants reacting to this flash of insight to see Catholicism in favorable light

On “parts of” I agree, though in some areas there has been general improvement, such aa the recent “Hope of Eternal Life” document. The problem is that my wayward liberal Lutherans siblings continue to drift further and further away from Christian orthodoxy. That’s not the fault of our Catholic partners.

On your comments about the “33,000” number.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Then you should have no problem naming them.

Jon

What I did was quote a Catholic Answers Tract (The Great Heresies) and quoted from it that there were (in 1999) 20,000 - 30,000 denominations…‘virtually all of which are Protestant’.

I can’t for the life of me understand why quoting from this CA tract means that I should be able to name them all.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

ILC - Catholic dialogue

[ILC Catholic dialogue](ILC Catholic dialogue)

It appears that this link is broken. All I get is “This page cannot be displayed”

Could you repost it please?

Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

What I did was quote a Catholic Answers Tract (The Great Heresies) and quoted from it that there were (in 1999) 20,000 - 30,000 denominations…‘virtually all of which are Protestant’.

I can’t for the life of me understand why quoting from this CA tract means that I should be able to name them all.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

If they exist, and they recently came into existence, surely they have a name. Right?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

It appears that this link is broken. All I get is “This page cannot be displayed”

Could you repost it please?

Topper

ilc-online.org/2015/10/16/international-lutheran-council-roman-catholic-dialogue-begins/

Try it now.

Sorry

 

[Topper17]

That’s perfect. Thank you very much. Already copied. I am hoping to see some real progress in this dialogue.

ilc-online.org/2015/10/16/international-lutheran-council-roman-catholic-dialogue-begins/

Try it now.

Sorry

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have re -read your post three times now:

I’m am still not sure of your answer to this:

When you say “unity”: do you mean unity in teaching (non- contradicting doctrines) or to you mean unity in beliefs (every one interprets doctrines the same way)?

I think I was pretty clear on my answer.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

I never said I wanted the ILC in leadership of a dialogue.

To Jon, post number 211

Jon

Actually, I proposed a worldwide Protestant Ecumenical Council that would work out all of the differences amongst all Protestants, and then I said that “THEN, they could come to the Church with an actually unified position.” You didn’t like that proposal and suggested that:

Why would you think that? Lutherans could say, "I think that ALL western Chrsitians, including Catholics, should have a western ecumenical, and do the same as you’ve listed above.

Then all of you could approach the ILC for a council.

I think its pretty obvious as to how I misunderstood your post. It looked like you wanted all of us in the west to have a council and “Then all of you could approach the ILC for a council.”

 

[alwayswill]

I think I was pretty clear on my answer.

ok: it must be me:

I guess that about kills our conversation:

Have a good night.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Looks like we are all repeating ourselves now.

When I started this thread, I wanted to know if any protestants saw any problems with sola scriptura…And I honestly didn’t expect anyone to say they did, but to my surprise a few protestants acknowledged that it is problematic. And to those people I want to thank you for your honesty and integrity. Most people who are born and raised to believe something never stop to seriously examine why it is they believe it, or ask themselves if it is logically consistent to believe it.

 

[JonNC]

That’s perfect. Thank you very much. Already copied. I am hoping to see some real progress in this dialogue.

Me too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13706859]

Actually, I proposed a worldwide Protestant Ecumenical Council that would work out all of the differences amongst all Protestants, and then I said that “THEN, they could come to the Church with an actually unified position.”

Why just communions that are loosely designated as “protestant”? Why not a dialogue of all western Christians, for example? Lutherans, for example, have little more in common with Baptists, than Catholics do. And in many ways, we have more in common with each other. I think that’s why dialogue between Lutheranism and Catholicism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism, Catholicism and Anglicanism, makes more sense. Liturgy, sacraments, creeds, put us in a category more closely aligned than “protestant”.

I think its pretty obvious as to how I misunderstood your post. It looked like you wanted all of us in the west to have a council and “Then all of you could approach the ILC for a council.”

The my first comment set the comparison:

Why would you think that? Lutherans could say, "I think that ALL western Chrsitians, including Catholics, should have a western ecumenical, and do the same as you’ve listed above.

But okay. I’m good with that. I could have been clearer.

Jon

 

[alwayswill]

Looks like we are all repeating ourselves now.

When I started this thread, I wanted to know if any protestants saw any problems with sola scriptura…And I honestly didn’t expect anyone to say they did, but to my surprise a few protestants acknowledged that it is problematic. And to those people I want to thank you for your honesty and integrity. Most people who are born and raised to believe something never stop to seriously examine why it is they believe it, or ask themselves if it is logically consistent to believe it.

You asked “Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?”

You never asked if we find it logically consistent and why.