Sola Scriptura and Multiple Denominations

[happilycatholic]

I’ve asked this question on another thread and no one can tell me the answer. I want to know where in Scripture it sites the exsistance of multiple Christian denominations.

I’m confused as to the theory of Sola Scriptura as it is practiced by non-catholics when in order to justify the exsistance of any form of Christianity outside the Church, they have to rely on someone’s individual interpretation of Scripture.

How do you hold on to Scripture Only when no where in Scripture does it state that there were multiple Christian denominations.

It’s a fair question, not a dig or an insult. I don’t mean to offend anyone.

HC

 

[JRKH]

I’ve asked this question on another thread and no one can tell me the answer. I want to know where in Scripture it sites the exsistance of multiple Christian denominations.

I’m confused as to the theory of Sola Scriptura as it is practiced by non-catholics when in order to justify the exsistance of any form of Christianity outside the Church, they have to rely on someone’s individual interpretation of Scripture.

How do you hold on to Scripture Only when no where in Scripture does it state that there were multiple Christian denominations.

It’s a fair question, not a dig or an insult. I don’t mean to offend anyone.

HC

Non-Catholics really don’t think in terms of “multiple denominations” being a biblical problem since there is only “one church” - One “community of believers”.
I have had protestants refer to the Biblical reference to the “Churches” in Revelation as being evidence of more than one “ecclesiastical community”.

Hope this helps a bit.

Peace
James

 

[reteeks21]

Non-Catholics really don’t think in terms of “multiple denominations” being a biblical problem since there is only “one church” - One “community of believers”.
I have had protestants refer to the Biblical reference to the “Churches” in Revelation as being evidence of more than one “ecclesiastical community”.

Hope this helps a bit.

Peace
James

I’ll even say that’s a pretty weak arguement on their part.

 

[JonNC]

=happilycatholic;4962450]I’ve asked this question on another thread and no one can tell me the answer. I want to know where in Scripture it sites the exsistance of multiple Christian denominations.

Christ calls for us to be one, not many denominations. It should be our goal, as Christians, to continuously pray for and seek unity.

I’m confused as to the theory of Sola Scriptura as it is practiced by non-catholics when in order to justify the exsistance of any form of Christianity outside the Church, they have to rely on someone’s individual interpretation of Scripture.

Well, sola scriptura is not, in the reformation sense, all about private interpretation. I’ve used Martin Chemnitz’s quote frequently here lately, concerning private interpretation:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

How do you hold on to Scripture Only when no where in Scripture does it state that there were multiple Christian denominations.

First, I’d want to know what you mean by scripture only.
Without meaning to offend, how can the Catholic Church hold onto its view of papal primacy, when it, in part, caused the great schism. Scripture cannot justify that duplex of Churches either. So, since we all have a share of blame for division, we all have to pray for the work of the Holy Spirit to reunite us, Catholic and Protestant, East and West.

It’s a fair question, not a dig or an insult. I don’t mean to offend anyone.

It is a fair question, and it doesn’t offend in the sense you mean. But it should offend all of us in this sense: it should be a reminder of the wounded nature of the Church, wounded by separation and schism, by our collective sin.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

I’ll even say that’s a pretty weak arguement on their part.

Well naturally from a Catholic perspective we recognize it as weak and I doubt that most Protestants really hold to this as a prime example. I was just trying to help the OP recognize the different perspective of the non-catholic.

It will be interesting to see what our non-catholic friends might have to post on the subject.

Peace
James

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

Non-Catholics really don’t think in terms of “multiple denominations” being a biblical problem since there is only “one church” - One “community of believers”.
I have had protestants refer to the Biblical reference to the “Churches” in Revelation as being evidence of more than one “ecclesiastical community”.

Hope this helps a bit.

Peace
James

The churches in Revelation are real local churches, they were not of different denominations.

There is THE CHURCH, which are all those who have been washed in the blood of the lamb, the true believers of the Church age and there are local churches, as in where people meet to worship and remember the Lord.

 

[happilycatholic]

Christ calls for us to be one, not many denominations. It should be our goal, as Christians, to continuously pray for and seek unity.

Hi JonNC!

Well, sola scriptura is not, in the reformation sense, all about private interpretation. I’ve used Martin Chemnitz’s quote frequently here lately, concerning private interpretation:

**I totally agree, the doctrine of SS has very little to do with private interpretation. Rather, it has more to do with using only Scripture to determine God’s will for us. Christ did not do that. The Apostles didn’t do that. No one in the Scriptures ever used Scripture alone to know God’s will. **

---

**If a person wanted to create a schism from the Church wouldn’t that person have to come up with SS or some other doctrine that he could use to manipulate the perspective followers? **

First, I’d want to know what you mean by scripture only.

---

---

Without meaning to offend, how can the Catholic Church hold onto its view of papal primacy, when it, in part, caused the great schism. Scripture cannot justify that duplex of Churches either. So, since we all have a share of blame for division, we all have to pray for the work of the Holy Spirit to reunite us, Catholic and Protestant, East and West.

**I sort of have a different view of this subject. I don’t think doctrines can cause schism. People cause schism. **

It is a fair question, and it doesn’t offend in the sense you mean. But it should offend all of us in this sense: it should be a reminder of the wounded nature of the Church, wounded by separation and schism, by our collective sin.

Jon

When you say “Church” I’m not sure if you mean the Universal Church (sorry, it’s my catholic belief, not a slant) or the body of believers in Christ that is geographically “universal”. But… I don’t think the Church is wounded by separation and schism, I think it’s God who is wounded by separation and schism. Christ says that the gates of hell will not prevail upon the Church so the Church is fine. It always will be even if it’s only two believers. But I think God will be heartbroken that so many have fallen away and chosen to follow many shepards instead of The Shepard.

---

I love all my Christian brothers and sisters but I do have concern that they may be taking a decidedly risky chance by following many shepards with many opinions of what the Scriptures say about God’s will for us.

You are very charitable and I hope I have done as good a job as you with my responses. I do pray that we’ll all come into communion with Christ as one body of believers one day.

---

Peace be with you,

---

HC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Christ calls for us to be one, not many denominations. It should be our goal, as Christians, to continuously pray for and seek unity.

Well, sola scriptura is not, in the reformation sense, all about private interpretation. I’ve used Martin Chemnitz’s quote frequently here lately, concerning private interpretation:

First, I’d want to know what you mean by scripture only.
Without meaning to offend, how can the Catholic Church hold onto its view of papal primacy, when it, in part, caused the great schism. Scripture cannot justify that duplex of Churches either. So, since we all have a share of blame for division, we all have to pray for the work of the Holy Spirit to reunite us, Catholic and Protestant, East and West.

It is a fair question, and it doesn’t offend in the sense you mean. But it should offend all of us in this sense: it should be a reminder of the wounded nature of the Church, wounded by separation and schism, by our collective sin.

Jon

Gabriel of 12;

God bless you Jon for your post, I can appreciate your sincerety towards unity. I would like you to know I share in your sentiments here. True we all can share the blame for some type of division. I recall the Words of Jesus from Luke 12:51, " I have come not to establish peace but division". I call your attention later in the text when the master tells the worker to chop down the fig tree, the worker of the field, tells the master he will cultivate the ground of the fruitless fig tree and begs the master to give it one more year.

The reason I bring this up, is that our present Pope Benedict XVI claimed to be this worker in the field. My prayers are with the Pope and yours. We are already some 500 years later since the reformation; It is us who live today not the pass. We can learn from our fathers of what not to do.

Simply put, Sola Scriptura, denominations, Authority and pride is what has seperated the body of Jesus Christ. What would be more of an interesting topic of how to retract the rubberband before it breaks while there is still time to cultivate the ground before our King comes for his Church. I have read many intellectuals on all sides communicate on these forums. What type of setting would it be, should these intellectuals give way to communicating what could produce fruit, rather than why the fruit cannot be produced, so says the gardner in the parable of the Gospel.

Sure it is good to correct and inform the misinformed about the Catholic church, that is why this CAF is instrumental. But what effort is being made to cultivate the ground for all to bear fruit for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Peace be with you

 

[Syele]

Multiple deominations are not caused by Sola Scriptura but they are caused by prideful people who refuse to admit they might be incorrect and those who do not act humbly or commit other sins.

If it was caused by Sola Scriptura, then it would be only Sola Scriptura belieivng people who split and bicker. It should be pretty clear that that is not the case.

 

[Knowtheledge]

There isn’t a biblical reason for it, but I don’t really think that means it is a sin. All true Christians are the body of Christ. Although, I do think some that have split have done so because they aren’t really Christians. But I don’t think the existence of different denominations is necessarily wrong. After all, the chosen people had different divisions when Jesus was alive. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, et cetera. Now, some of the splits do seem kind of ridiculous, but some of them seem like the right thing to do. Take the Baptists for example; they split into the Northern and the Southern Baptists over the issue of slavery. Was that wrong?
Many Protestant denominations don’t really seem to disagree that much anyway to me. It seems to be a result more from location, nationality, et cetera.

 

[MelanieAnne]

All validly baptized Christians are members of the Body of Christ, the Church. Not all Christians are in communion with our Holy Father, the Successor of Peter as ordained by Jesus. There is one CHURCH.

The divisions in the Body of Christ were not effected by Jesus, who founded the Church, but by men. So it is up to us to resolve the problem.

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

All validly baptized Christians are members of the Body of Christ, the Church. Not all Christians are in communion with our Holy Father, the Successor of Peter as ordained by Jesus. There is one CHURCH.

The divisions in the Body of Christ were not effected by Jesus, who founded the Church, but by men. So it is up to us to resolve the problem.

The Rock that Christ was refering to was himself, not Peter.
To call the pope the holy father is blasphemy, we have one Spiritual Father and he is on his throne in heaven.

 

[ralphinal]

Multiple deominations are not caused by Sola Scriptura but they are caused by prideful people who refuse to admit they might be incorrect and those who do not act humbly or commit other sins.

If it was caused by Sola Scriptura, then it would be only Sola Scriptura belieivng people who split and bicker. It should be pretty clear that that is not the case.

This is exactly right. Sola Scriptura was one tool USED by some of these men to split the Church.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The Rock that Christ was refering to was himself, not Peter.
To call the pope the holy father is blasphemy, we have one Spiritual Father and he is on his throne in heaven.

This sort of thinking only appeals to the sort of people who take to using Sola Scripture as a tool to divide the Body of Christ. Through pride and arrogance, they substitute their judgment for that of Jesus who founded one faith and one body of believers.

Also suggesting that Catholics are blasphemous is not exactly aligning oneself with the charitable behavior agreed to at registration.

 

[happilycatholic]

The Rock that Christ was refering to was himself, not Peter.
To call the pope the holy father is blasphemy, we have one Spiritual Father and he is on his throne in heaven.

That would be the Heavenly Father, not the Holy Father. Anyone can be holy and any man can be a father. One can only be Heavenly when one is with Him there.

 

[happilycatholic]

There isn’t a biblical reason for it, but I don’t really think that means it is a sin. All true Christians are the body of Christ. Although, I do think some that have split have done so because they aren’t really Christians. But I don’t think the existence of different denominations is necessarily wrong. After all, the chosen people had different divisions when Jesus was alive. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, et cetera. Now, some of the splits do seem kind of ridiculous, but some of them seem like the right thing to do. Take the Baptists for example; they split into the Northern and the Southern Baptists over the issue of slavery. Was that wrong?
Many Protestant denominations don’t really seem to disagree that much anyway to me. It seems to be a result more from location, nationality, et cetera.

Hi Knowtheledge!

**I think it is about commitment to the Bride of Christ. All Christians should be committed to a single God through a single form of Christianity. It is about not putting one’s beliefs out there as their own “version” of Christianity. **

**I think the Christian denominations disagree much more than you think. Take for instance denominations that believe they are the remant church and are the only ones that will be permitted into Heaven. What about doctines on divorce, the death penalty and abortion? What about some who worship on a different day than Sunday? Those are rifts that I would consider serious divisions within Chrsitian denominations outside the catholic faith. **

If a non-catholic doesn’t like a certain denomination any more, that person can simply change denominations. Some change can be radical like from Baptist to Seventh Day. How can that be God’s will? How can God’s will be present in a “church” in which some belive abortion is a sin and some do not? Protestants will say God’s church is the whole of the body of believers on earth but I doubt God’s church is that divided within itself. I see God’s church as one body believing the same things altogether. They worship together all over the world and come together to enjoy His Son in unison. That to me would seem to be more pleasing to God than what is going on outside the catholic Church. Wouldn’t that be more “Sola Scriptura”?

 

[Bookworm88]

**I think it is about commitment to the Bride of Christ. All Christians should be committed to a single God through a single form of Christianity. It is about not putting one’s beliefs out there as their own “version” of Christianity. **

But from the Protestant point of view, that’s what they think the Catholics have done, just starting at a much earlier time. Just suppose, and I know this would be hard for Catholics to suppose, but just suppose that Jesus was NOT setting up the concept of a pope when he talked about Peter being the rock. If that were true, then any churches that started recognizing someone as a pope would be the churches deviating from the “form of Christianity” that Christ intended. Then suppose those deviating churches became authorized by a government and had power to seek out and destroy the true churches. I know, I know, I’m doing a lot of supposing. Those true churches might not all call themselves by the same name, other than “church,” but God would keep them in existence since he promised his church would always be on the earth. Yet the false church would continue to exist and to honestly believe that they themselves were the correct one. In that scenario, the Catholics would also be a denomination, and it wouldn’t necessarily be clear to someone which denomination was correct unless one looked to the Bible for indications of what the Bible was teaching. One of the false denominations might say, “We get to interptet the Bible since we have existed the longest”, but that wouldn’t actually be true since the true churches had to stay hidden so as not to be destroyed. It might get to the point where all denominations had some false understandings of Scripture, but God’s true universal church would still be composed of all who believed on Christ, even if the denomination they were in did not have all the correct interpretations.

But that’s all just supposing.

 

[happilycatholic]

But from the Protestant point of view, that’s what they think the Catholics have done, just starting at a much earlier time. Just suppose, and I know this would be hard for Catholics to suppose, but just suppose that Jesus was NOT setting up the concept of a pope when he talked about Peter being the rock. If that were true, then any churches that started recognizing someone as a pope would be the churches deviating from the “form of Christianity” that Christ intended. Then suppose those deviating churches became authorized by a government and had power to seek out and destroy the true churches. I know, I know, I’m doing a lot of supposing. Those true churches might not all call themselves by the same name, other than “church,” but God would keep them in existence since he promised his church would always be on the earth. Yet the false church would continue to exist and to honestly believe that they themselves were the correct one. In that scenario, the Catholics would also be a denomination, and it wouldn’t necessarily be clear to someone which denomination was correct unless one looked to the Bible for indications of what the Bible was teaching. One of the false denominations might say, “We get to interptet the Bible since we have existed the longest”, but that wouldn’t actually be true since the true churches had to stay hidden so as not to be destroyed. It might get to the point where all denominations had some false understandings of Scripture, but God’s true universal church would still be composed of all who believed on Christ, even if the denomination they were in did not have all the correct interpretations.

But that’s all just supposing.

Starting from Peter, that would all be a wonderful supposition if there weren’t Apostles being crucified for being followers of Christ and apparently those doing the crucifying even believed they were followers of Christ and teachers of Christ’s form of Christianity. The only Christians around then. There were no others that didn’t follow the Apostles. So I’m not sure who these other Christians would’ve been who didn’t believe that Christ left the Church in Peter’s hands and subsequently struck out on their own. Who were these early Christians who followed some other Apostle preaching God’s Word?

---

It was only in the 16th century that the Church was protested against. It is written in history that catholics from time to time were forced into hiding as well so that claim is disproved. The One True Church cannot be identified by persecution.

---

Further, descension doesn’t prove that the Church is a false church. If that were true Christ would’ve thought twice about calling Judas to his side. It only proves imperfection among human beings when God puts His trust in us which has been the case since Simon Peter and Judas, to name a couple.

 

[JonNC]

When you say “Church” I’m not sure if you mean the Universal Church (sorry, it’s my catholic belief, not a slant) or the body of believers in Christ that is geographically “universal”. But… I don’t think the Church is wounded by separation and schism, I think it’s God who is wounded by separation and schism. Christ says that the gates of hell will not prevail upon the Church so the Church is fine. It always will be even if it’s only two believers. But I think God will be heartbroken that so many have fallen away and chosen to follow many shepards instead of The Shepard.

---

I love all my Christian brothers and sisters but I do have concern that they may be taking a decidedly risky chance by following many shepards with many opinions of what the Scriptures say about God’s will for us.

.

---

Peace be with you,

---

HC

And also with you.
Yes, I mean the universal church, and our respective communions have discussed this issue here: usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

1. To say that each church understands itself and the other to exercise the apostolic ministry is not to say that either church escapes the damage done to our ministries by the ongoing scandal of our division. To the extent that the ordained ministry of one church is not in communion with the ordained ministry of other churches, it is unable to carry out its witness to the unity of the church as it should. Such a ministry inevitably bears a wound or defect. Ministry carries this wound whenever the koinonia among eucharistic communities and different realizations of the church are broken. Because our relationships are broken, our ministry is wounded and in need of healing by God’s grace.

But I agree with you that is it also a wound against God, and I too believe that, in spite of our sin of separation and schism, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against His Church.

totally agree, the doctrine of SS has very little to do with private interpretation. Rather, it has more to do with using only Scripture to determine God’s will for us. Christ did not do that. The Apostles didn’t do that. No one in the Scriptures ever used Scripture alone to know God’s will.

It is important to understand that SS only applies to the post-apostolic era.

If a person wanted to create a schism from the Church wouldn’t that person have to come up with SS or some other doctrine that he could use to manipulate the perspective followers?

Goodness, I’ve never thought of this as manipulation. I’ve never thought of the reformers in that way. When one reads the Augsburg Confession, the idea comes across that they were trying hard not to divide, not to manipulate. Perhaps you can expand your thinking on this for me.

I sort of have a different view of this subject. I don’t think doctrines can cause schism. People cause schism.

So, do you believe that the issue at the reformation was more Luther than sola fide? Do you think that fits what I’ve said about Augsburg?

You are very charitable and I hope I have done as good a job as you with my responses. I do pray that we’ll all come into communion with Christ as one body of believers one day

The feelings are mutual, and indeed you have. I share your prayers.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;4965110]Gabriel of 12;
God bless you Jon for your post, I can appreciate your sincerety towards unity. I would like you to know I share in your sentiments here. True we all can share the blame for some type of division. I recall the Words of Jesus from Luke 12:51, " I have come not to establish peace but division". I call your attention later in the text when the master tells the worker to chop down the fig tree, the worker of the field, tells the master he will cultivate the ground of the fruitless fig tree and begs the master to give it one more year.

The reason I bring this up, is that our present Pope Benedict XVI claimed to be this worker in the field. My prayers are with the Pope and yours. We are already some 500 years later since the reformation; It is us who live today not the pass. We can learn from our fathers of what not to do.

And Pope Benedict’s immediate 2 or 3 predecessors were some of the hardest workers in His fields. I share your thoughts that we are 500 years out. Luther and Pope Leo X do not control our paths today, we do. If our paths join it will be because we have allowed the Holy Spirit to work our hearts in that way.

Simply put, Sola Scriptura, denominations, Authority and pride is what has seperated the body of Jesus Christ. What would be more of an interesting topic of how to retract the rubberband before it breaks while there is still time to cultivate the ground before our King comes for his Church. I have read many intellectuals on all sides communicate on these forums. What type of setting would it be, should these intellectuals give way to communicating what could produce fruit, rather than why the fruit cannot be produced, so says the gardner in the parable of the Gospel.
Sure it is good to correct and inform the misinformed about the Catholic church, that is why this CAF is instrumental. But what effort is being made to cultivate the ground for all to bear fruit for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

There have been dramatic moves since Vatican II to improve our relationship and move us toward unity. Much more can and must be done. I am no expert, but I wonder what a truly ecumenical council, of east and west, including willing protestants, would be possible and helpful.

Peace be with you

And also with you,
Jon