Where is Henry VIII’s body of work in theology and exegesis? Charles Wesley is remembered as a hymnodist, not a theologian, and even his brother John is revered by Methodists more as a founder of a tradition than as an authority.
You argument lacks coherence (and paragraphs), but the primary distinctive of the Reformation was that of holding Scripture as supreme as the accurate wholly inspired word of God, not the assured veracity of men as in Rome.
Thus truth claims in Scripture were established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) If you have a problem with this, tell me why common people in the 1st century should have followed itinerant preachers whom the historical learned magisterium rejected, and whom they reproved by Scripture as being supreme? (Mk. 7:2-16)
The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)
My response does have coherence (although no paragraphs), in the sense that I was picking at pictures of alleged Protestant leaders who are all described in this way.
“______________is the final biblical interpretive authority for many Protestants.”
Although all of these people remain influential in varying degrees, few of them can be considered “the final biblical interpretative authority” for anyone.
The OP’s point was that there are thousands of Protestant denominations, and then posted the pictures to show some of the denominational “founders.” Some of these never founded a separate denomination (e.g. Charles G. Finney), and some were not, strictly speaking, Protestant (Christian Science.) My point about Henry VIII is that, while he gave the OK for the Church of England to split from Rome, he is in no way any kind of “final biblical interpretative authority” for Anglicans or anyone else. And while Charles Wesley can be considered a founder of Methodism, it was John Wesley who was the brains and force behind the movement. He is the one who remains a theological influence. Charles just wrote the soundtrack. He is not “a final interpretative authority.”
To provide contrast to the thousands of Protestant denominations, the OP then added a post that there is one Church, founded by Jesus Christ, and that is the Catholic Church, with a unity of doctrine and one final interpretative authority.
I don’t have a problem with how first-century people followed itinerate preachers based on the power of their message. That is a fact. I do have a problem with the claim that the Church of Rome is the One, True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that everyone not a Catholic is out in the dark. I also have a problem with the idea that on one hand there are Catholics and on the other hand there is “everybody else” and that those in the “everybody else” category who are not Eastern Orthodox are Protestants. They are not.
As you point out, “the primary distinctive of the Reformation was that of holding Scripture as supreme as the accurate wholly inspired word of God, not the assured veracity of men as in Rome.” But all of the original Reformers also maintained a continuity of doctrine and practice with historic Christianity. They held onto core doctrines that could be substantiated by Scripture. They continued the to observe the sacraments/ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. There are some identified on the photo list as “Protestants” who did not maintain that continuity. I would say that they cannot be called Protestants if the term has any true historical meaning.
So to make a long story longer, my problem with the original post is that it was making a point by misrepresenting history. And, I was actually taking your side, even though my incoherence and lack of paragraphs might have led you to believe otherwise. ;)