Sola Scriptura and the Proliferation of Protestant Denominations

TeamPyro ^ | Phil Johnson

[Mr. Lucky]

An excellent post.

[Claud]

Something tells me that you do not in your house need an infallible interpreter to exercise your authority. You no doubt try to clarify issues as much as possible for your children (I’m assuming you have children), and if doubts arise about what you meant, you settle those as they come up: I meant this and not this.

Likewise the Church. Peter rules, and if a question arises about that ruling, Peter rules again. And again. And again. The authority is always there, always in the same place, and always capable of providing firm and sure guidance.

Only if the authority in a house goes away, does it become a question of people scrambling to interpret what that authority meant. And I think that is exactly the situation we see in the Reformed churches.

[alpha-8-25-02]

"Nonetheless, in recent years many gullible Protestants have been drawn into either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy by the claim that one or the other represents the only church Christ founded. Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up. Many recent converts from evangelicalism will testify that the proliferation and fragmentation of so many Protestant denominations is what first convinced them that Protestant principles must be wrong."

AS A SAINT,THE LORD LED FROM ROME I WOULD DISAGREE THAT TRADITIONAL EVANGELICALS MOVED FOR THIS REASON. ARMINIAN TYPES ARE PRONE TO CROSS THE TIBER.

TOPLADY SAID IT BEST: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/RHNarmin.htm

5 SOLAS!

[MarkBsnr]

***Only if the authority in a house goes away, does it become a question of people scrambling to interpret what that authority meant. And I think that is exactly the situation we see in the Reformed churches.***

Over on another thread a Calvinist gentleman was waxing lyrical about the distinct advantage of the Reformation in that it granted democracy to the theology of the individual.

I didn’t know that God was democratic. I stand corrected.

[HarleyD]

That is precisely why many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have focused their rhetoric on "unity." Both sincerely believe if they can establish the claim that they, and no one else, are the One True Church instituted by Christ, then all other Protestant complaints about doctrine, church polity, and ecclesiastical abuses become moot. If they can successfully sell their notion that the "unity" of John 17:21 is primarily an organizational unity, they should in effect be able to convince members of denominational and independent churches to reunite with the Mother Church regardless of whether she is right or wrong on other matters.

Ah...the winds of ecumenicalism. Actually I think this is more than the Catholics trying to bring people under their roof, although that is without a doubt their hope. I think a lot of Christians have bought into this "doctrine doesn't matter" syndrome. Protestants can't understand what's the problem with Catholic theology. Orthodox don't see anything too bad about the Catholics. Catholics think the Muslims are worshiping the same God. And everyone believes that God is blessing the Jews-well almost all Christians.

There is much truth in this author's statement. We're heading to a universal church built on organization and not on doctrine.

[WileyPink]

Likewise the Church. Peter rules, and if a question arises about that ruling, Peter rules again. And again. And again. The authority is always there, always in the same place, and always capable of providing firm and sure guidance.

Peter doesn't rule my church, Christ does. And His (Christ's) authority is always there.) Peter's is in fact in the same place, Peter is DEAD and therefore can not provide any guidance, or anything else for that matter.

In Christ...Alone!

[BibChr]

But The RC argument is that an individual is — contrary to the testimony of the Word of God itself — incapable of understanding the Word of God. He needs the Magisterium.

But can he understand the Magisterium?

It’s very simple, though I could draw it out if there’d be a point to it.

If the Magisterium can speak so as to be understood by a common person, then it succeeds where God failed.

There really is no honest way around that.

[Kolokotronis]

““So the Pope is capable of speaking in an infallibly perspicuous way...”

My wife does, so I don’t see why the Pope can’t. In fact, it’s kind of like maternal succession; infallibility passes from mother to wife which causes her to become a mother and passes it on to another wife etc.”

I’ve had the exact same experience with She Who Must Be Obeyed, bd!

[Ottofire]

>2. The Orthodox churches throughout the early days of the church CONSTANTLY REFERRED TO THE POPE to settle issues and abided by them, even if the deny that today.

Actually when the whole church was teaching Arianism, even the infallible Pope, Athenasius stood against this infallible magisterium with truth on his side. And Athenasius got excommunicated and exiled for his troubles.

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another” [Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, “The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian”]

Would an anathema be considered tyrannical terror?

Council of Chalcedon Canon 28:
“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. “

“For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.”

So privileges given to Rome were POLITICALLY and TRADITIONALLY motivated, not due to any spiritual superiority.

Jerome: “Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles.”

This is where Jerome is showing deference to Rome???

Gregory I:”Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” and compares the man who chooses the title “universal bishop” to Satan. [Gregory I of Rome, Book V, Epistle 18, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, 12:166]

Yeah, sounds like the early church all bowed to the Pope as the premere CATHOLIC or (universal) priest. What was that about the ANTICHRIST? Was this an infallible teaching by Pope Gregory I? Or was that just his view as a private theologian?

[Quester]

That is a favorite argument of Catholic apologists. They are convinced that the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21 is an organizational solidarity that is incompatible with both denominationalism and independency. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the only way true Christian unity will be fully and finally achieved is when "separated brethren"—non-Catholic Christians—reunite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.

Jesus' idea of christian unity ...

Luke 9:49 John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."

50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

[raygunfan]

YOU:

Christ never ordained Peter to be infallible. That was a misintrepretation. The reason for Christ’s coming was that having appointed Men lead the faithful had failed throughout the entire OT. Christ the Messiah is the Rock.

“Through Christ all things are possible.” <— Many Christians believe this.

“From Christ, through the Pope, all things are possible.” <— Catholic version.

Do you think it’s possible for a person, working with Christ, to accurately interpret the Word? Obviously you do, and so does the Catechism.

ME: where do you get:

“From Christ, through the Pope, all things are possible.” <— Catholic version.

That is nowhere in the church’s teaching....

[raygunfan]

YOU:

Christ never ordained Peter to be infallible. That was a misintrepretation. The reason for Christ’s coming was that having appointed Men lead the faithful had failed throughout the entire OT. Christ the Messiah is the Rock.

ME: no one has ever taught that peter was ordained to be infallible..again, you are reading into the what you believe, in error, about what His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church truly teaches.

[raygunfan]

YOU:

Tradition has value, but has proven to run afoul of the Word. Why some folks place tradition above Word, I’ll never know.

There is no truth that isn’t fully reconciled to the Word.

ME: your either willfully twisting catholic teaching, or, and i hope this is the truth, you are woefully misinformed of catholic teaching.

the church teaches the word and tradition as equal, as the word was given the to apostles by Christ, as were the sacred traditions from ‘day 1’, as any perusal of the earliest christian historical writings show.

[wmfights]

Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up.

It seems to me that the early Christian churches were united in their belief in The Gospel and faith in Jesus Christ. However, the leaders of the churches were selected by the congregation, usually from the congregation. The centralized hierarchy only emerged later.

Interesting post and topic.

[raygunfan]

YOU:

Something tells me that you do not in your house need an infallible interpreter to exercise your authority. You no doubt try to clarify issues as much as possible for your children (I’m assuming you have children), and if doubts arise about what you meant, you settle those as they come up: I meant this and not this.

Likewise the Church. Peter rules, and if a question arises about that ruling, Peter rules again. And again. And again. The authority is always there, always in the same place, and always capable of providing firm and sure guidance.

Only if the authority in a house goes away, does it become a question of people scrambling to interpret what that authority meant. And I think that is exactly the situation we see in the Reformed churches.

ME: right on claud.

[PAR35]

2. Baptism of believers

So you build a wall between the Reformed folks and the modern evangelicals? And where do you put the Bible Church preacher I ran across s few years ago who was otherwise a straight premil dispensationalist, but who otherwise believed in infant baptism?

[raygunfan]

congrats for cherry picking a few phrases...do you want me to play that game too?

[raygunfan]

YOU:
Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up.
It seems to me that the early Christian churches were united in their belief in The Gospel and faith in Jesus Christ. However, the leaders of the churches were selected by the congregation, usually from the congregation. The centralized hierarchy only emerged later.

Interesting post and topic.

ME: that is simply not true, the sucessors to the orginal apostles were the bishops APPOINTED BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVes...AND SO ON DOWN THE LINE. The church hieararchy was there from the beginning.

[wmfights]

...the sucessors to the orginal apostles were the bishops APPOINTED BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVes...AND SO ON DOWN THE LINE. The church hieararchy was there from the beginning.

I think if you reread Acts, especially the Jerusalem Council you might revise your thinking. Also, you might note that the Apostles were missionaries and did not dictate who would lead which church. The centralized hierarchy that attempted to control all of Christianity only emerged later.

[raygunfan]

I love your quote of Jerome, but you neglect the good stuff, here, try this on for size, and see Jerome and his deference to the Pope:

Jerome

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

THEN YOU QUOTED FROM THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEON, BUT, AGAIN, YOU LEAVE OUT THE FOLLOWING:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

SEE, THE DIFFERENCE????

SHALL I GO ON?