Demonstrate that those ecclesial systems that follow "Scripture plus an Infallible Interpreter" are more unified in their beliefs than those ecclesial systems that follow Sola Scriptura.
"[This] is clearly not true as stated, for if it were then Mormons and Catholics would have to be unified, which they aren't. Would you count as correct an answer that says they are not unified?" (S. Brandt).
I would say that it is indeed a "correct" statement, but not one that wins the loot, I'm afraid, since it demonstrates that the Roman Catholic principle creates more doctrinal chaos than does the Protestant principle (which violates the condition of the challenge question itself). But read on for a different Roman Catholic answer:
"Another false premise. We do not say such systems are more unified in their beliefs than other systems. Thats [sic] silly. The beliefs of such systems are generally more easily determined, (eg. read the CCC) since there is no single Protestant Catechism. Also they are more durable since the CC is 2000 years old, with only a few major unhealed schisms, whereas there are tens of thousands of other churches based on ‘Sola Scriptura’ which continue to fragment daily" (Tony Russo).
There are many inaccuracies in the above statement that I will address while addressing the essence of the response itself. First, to compare the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) with a "single" Protestant Catechism is to miss the point entirely and to compare apples and oranges. The contestant is, in essence, comparing a single entity within the collective body of entities that maintain we must subscribe to the Bible plus an infallible interpreter (system 1) to the collective body of entities that maintain we must subscribe to the Bible alone (system 2). In order to make a fair comparison, the contestant must select one of the entities within system 1 (say, Roman Catholicism) and compare it to only one of the entities within system 2 (say, the Evangelical Free church). I dare say, there is much more agreement within the Evangelical Free church than there is in the Roman Catholic church.
Second, the contestant makes the gratuitous statement that the Roman Catholic church is 2,000 years old--that is demonstrably false, as has been pointed out time and again, much to the embarrassment of Roman Catholic apologists in public debate. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.
Third, the "tens of thousands" of churches that maintain Sola Scriptura (to which the contestant refers) are far more unified than the tens of thousands of churches that subscribe to the Bible plus an infallible interpreter. For instance, the Evangelical Free church and the Baptist church are far more unified than are the Roman Catholic church and the Mormon church. The first two believe in Sola Scriptura, and as a result have come to very similar beliefs--and embrace each other as brothers; while the latter two believe in the Bible plus an infallible interpreter, and as a result disagree on almost every point of doctrine--and reject each other as heretics! Obviously, the principle of "Bible plus an infallible interpreter" creates nothing but doctrinal chaos and anarchy. Indeed, one could pick at random half a dozen belief systems that subscribe to Sola Scriptura and they would invariably be more unified than any half a dozen belief systems that subscribe to the Bible plus an infallible interpreter. Moreover, there are absolutely no two belief systems within the "Bible plus an infallible interpreter" camp that embrace each other as brothers; whereas in the case of the Sola Scriptura camp everyone--with very few exceptions--embraces everyone else as brothers. That, I submit, is true biblical unity. But read on for a different Roman Catholic answer:
"The Church's official teachers-the pope and the bishops united with him-have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:1213), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant. Although there are certainly dissenters within her midst, the official teaching of the Church has remained constant for 2000 years, and is the same in every part of the world." (Paul Ross).
The contestant has misunderstood the challenge, most likely due to the fact that the false comparison between the one denomination of Rome vs. the many denominations of Protestantism is such a deeply entrenched fallacy in the Roman Catholic mind that it is difficult for the contestant to escape its clutches. In fact, the challenge asks the Roman Catholic to demonstrate that the unity among ALL those institutions that hold to Scripture PLUS an infallible interpreter (Rome, the EOC, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, etc.) is greater than the unity among all those institutions that hold to Scripture alone. This he cannot do. The purpose of the contest question is to demonstrate that when the Roman Catholic apologist argues that since Protestantism has over "20,000" denominations then its guiding principle (sola scriptura) must be a "blueprint for anarchy," that argument is actually based on the false premise that the one denomination of Rome should be compared to the many denominations within Protestantism. The argument as such compares a rule of faith (viz., Scripture alone) to a denomination (viz., Rome), rather than a rule of faith (Scripture alone) to a rule of faith (Scripture plus an infallible interpreter) or a denomination (e.g., Rome) to a denomination (e.g., Evangelical Free). Such a comparison is obviously a false one. When a true comparison is made between "Scripture alone" as a rule of faith and "Scripture plus an infallible interpreter" as a rule of faith, or between the denomination of Rome and any Protestant denomination, it becomes abundantly clear that Rome utterly fails the unity test. For when one randomly selects, say, any five ecclesial systems that follow Scripture alone as their rule of faith and compares them to any five ecclesial systems that follow Scripture PLUS an infallible interpreter as their rule of faith, it is beyond dispute that the first group will be much more unified than the second group. But read on for another Roman Catholic who falls into the same error:
"Fine. :-) For starters, we Catholics have a Catechism (to say nothing of a Creed and other official statements) which outlines all the essential tenets of the Catholic Christian Faith. Where's yours? Where is the Evangelical Protestant equivalent?" ([the contestant formerly known as] MARK BONOCORE, A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST FOR BOB SUNGENIS’ CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INTERNATIONAL).
What was said about the previous contestant is true of this one as well. Read on for yet another Roman Catholic who falls into the same error:
"Only two make [sic] ecclesial systems make such a claim, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. Both assert salvation comes through the deification God accomplishes in us in the sacraments. For a demonstration of the unity of the Catholic Church, I point to the Catechism of the Catholic Church - all who hold to all that it contains, or would hold it if they knew all that it contained, are Catholic. For the Eastern Orthodox, an equivalent demonstration is made at every sacramental communion." (Steven Kellmeyer).
Obviously, there are tens of thousands of ecclesial systems that claim Scripture PLUS an infallible interpreter (and that’s only counting cults in California : ). But, alas, this contestant makes the same mistake as all the others above when he begins comparing the "unity" of the (in this case) two denominations he cites (Rome and the EOC) to the unity among all denominations within Protestantism. However, he has simply selected the two denominations that follow Scripture PLUS an infallible interpreter that he that he thinks are fairly close to each other (viz., Rome and the EOC). However, the differences even between Rome and the EOC are much greater than the differences between, say, Non-denominational churches and Evangelical Free churches. Indeed, even though Rome views the EOC as "brothers," the EOC believes Rome to be heretical and lost. Some "unity" that is : ) But read on for yet another Roman Catholic answer:
"Here you ask a more "empirical question" that requires some "scientific study" and evidence concerning the beliefs of "ecclesial systems" (what I'll simply call churches). I shall assume the question requires the demonstration that the Catholic Church is more unified than those Protestant churches that claim to follow Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). . . . The specific doctrines and beliefs involved in these four main areas are spelled out in great detail in such sources as the Ecumenical Councils, papal encyclicals, a book like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Protestants officially can be shown to be disunified in all four of these areas." (Phil Porvaznik).
I’ve abbreviated the above response because the contestant falls into the very same error as all the others who have tried and failed to answer the simple challenge question. Could this consistent inability among Catholic apologists to accurately and carefully read the challenge question be indicative of why they need someone else to interpret the Scriptures for them? : ) Hmmmmm . . . But read on for yet another Roman Catholic answer:
"First, I claim the issue is not Infallibility vs. Sola Scriptura." (Brent Arias). . .
Finally, a Roman Catholic who can read! : ) . . .
". . . The question as asked implies that I have to defend collectively *all* churches with an "infallible" system of authority. In other words, the question suggests that I must show how Mormonism is more united than Protestantism - just as I must show how Catholicism is more united than Protestantism." (Brent Arias).
. . . And you were doing so well! What happened? This is not the issue at all, of course; the issue is, Does the rule of faith, "Scripture PLUS an infallible interpreter," unify the adherents of that rule in a greater way than does the rule of faith, "sola scriptura," unify its adherents? Since this contestant, too, has missed the point, and since the remainder of his comments are based on his faulty understanding of the challenge question, I will forego addressing them here. If the reader is interested in the entire response, he can read it elsewhere. So, read on for still another Roman Catholic answer:
"Who cares? Unity of belief is not directly relevant to whether the Roman system is TRUE, and nothing else matters." (Ian Smith).
Now why didn’t I just think of that? : ) And, for our final contestant:
"There is one Roman Catholic Church united visibly throughout the world and history. There are thousands of Protestant sects." (Jacob W Dell).
Again, the contestant has misunderstood the question, and my response above applies here as well.
Roman Catholic apologists are fond of pointing out all of the doctrinal differences that result from the principle of sola scriptura. This challenge question was intended to show that the "rule of faith" by which Rome operates is a much more disunifying principle than is the rule of faith by which Protestants operate. Obviously, any two randomly selected ecclesial systems that adhere to sola scriptura as a rule of faith will be more unified than any two randomly selected ecclesial systems that adhere to "Scripture plus an infallible interpreter" as a rule of faith. Certainly, if one simply compares Rome (one adherent of the latter rule of faith) to Protestantism (all adherents of the former rule of faith), one may see more unity in the first than in the second. However, as we have already shown, such a comparison is a false comparison since it compares "apples and oranges." The Roman Catholic who appeals to such an argument says more about his own inability to engage in rational thought than he does about real comparisons.
In the concluding thoughts of the Challenge Question #1 we asked how we can be certain we are in the true church if everyone is left to his or her own private judgment/interpretation. The answer is really two fold. First, God commands us to use our own reasoning faculties to compare the gospel of any ecclesial system to the true gospel as originally given (Gal 1:6-9). According to this passage, we are not even to believe a known apostle ("even if we . . . preach another gospel to you") if his message conflicts with the original deposit, much less someone claiming to be his successor! This passage simply assumes we have the ability to make this comparison, and hence the ability to know the true gospel. Once we know the true gospel (by reading the original deposit), and comply with its demands ("believe and be saved"), we can safely count ourselves among the elect of God.
Second, one of the reasons we have this ability to know the true gospel from error is that God, by the illumination of his Holy Spirit, has ensured that none of his elect will be deceived by serious error ("False prophets will arise to deceive even the elect--if that were possible," Matt 24:24; "you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. . . .you do not need anyone to teach you," 1 John 2:20-27; "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth," John 16:13). What that boils down to is that the elect of God will always believe essential tenets of the faith. What are the "essential" tenets of the faith? In short, there is really no reason to define them if, as we have already seen, the elect automatically have a propensity to believe them when they hear them. Objectively, then, one need only compare the common beliefs within Evangelicalism to arrive at that list. Included here is belief in God as creator of all, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the love of Christ, the work of Christ alone in our salvation, the intercessory work of Christ, the high-priesthood of Christ, the finality of the salvific work of Christ, the person, work and deity of the Holy Spirit, the illumination of the Holy Spirit in understanding the truth, the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the sinner, the existence of angels, the fall of Satan, the work and wiles of Satan, the gospel message of salvation by grace through faith, the forgiveness of sins by belief in this gospel, the principle of Adam's sin transferred to us so that "all sinned," conscious and eternal blessedness of those who believe, the conscious and eternal punishment of those who don't believe, the authority of the local church, the final authority of Scripture alone as a rule of faith binding on the conscience of the believer, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures, the unity of the Scriptures, the imminent return of Christ, the physical return of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of the body of the believer, etc, etc., etc. I have listed only those beliefs that I could think of off the top of my head; a much fuller list could be complied with a little more thought.
The point is, while Roman Catholics consistently focus on areas of disagreement among Evangelicals (as though they have none of their own--an assumption that we will demonstrate in the following challenge questions to be completely in error), they are, in fact, focusing only on areas of non-essential beliefs. For instance, one of the areas of disagreement to which Roman Catholics point is the exact nature of the Lord's Supper. Do we believe in consubstantiation (as with the Lutherans), a spiritual presence of Christ (as do most Reformed Christians), or a strictly symbolic presence of Christ (as do most other denominations). The answer is--and this is important--it just doesn't matter! That's right, you read it correctly; it doesn't matter. Why not? Because the Scriptures do not sufficiently clarify the issue. Where the Scriptures are silent, there can be no essential belief--just as where there is no law there can be no transgression (Rom 4:15). In such a case, the principle of Rom 14:5 applies: "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Are there disagreements among Evangelicals? You bet. Are these essential disagreements? Not possible. No one who is the elect of God can be deceived in essential beliefs; which necessarily implies that any disagreements among Evangelicals cannot be disagreements over essential matters. That all Evangelicals agree with this principle is borne out by the fact that all Evangelicals, regardless of denominational affiliation, embrace one another as brothers in Christ. That there may be spurious, contentious groups that claim the principle of sola scriptura and that disown the rest of us does not militate against the principle outlined above. If they do not believe in what we as Evangelicals have decided are essential beliefs, then they are not Evangelical and, hence, are not true Christians. If they do subscribe to those beliefs but shun the rest of us who believe likewise, then they are divisive and are in turn to be shunned (Rom 16:17-19, etc.). In short, Evangelicalism is the true church, and that is arrived at though the objective and collective interpretation of the Scriptures themselves.
One may object that the "infallible interpreter" principle is, by its very nature exclusive, while the "sola scriptura" principle is, by its very nature, inclusive, and that such a comparison is unfair since the "infallible interpreter" must be allowed to operate exclusively. While it is true that the "infallible interpreter" principle is exclusive and the "sola scriptura" principle is inclusive, it is not thereby an unfair comparison--indeed, it further illustrates my point. If we all--all of us--use the sola scriptura principle, we will, with few exceptions, arrive at near unanimity about what the Bible teaches; and as a result, we will embrace each other as brothers in Christ. In other words, sola scriptura results in a relatively unified system of belief. However, if all of us, instead, were to use the "infallible interpreter" principle, which excludes private judgment as a legitimate overarching principle (although I will argue that proponents of this view inconsistently apply this very principle to figure out who the *right* infallible interpreter is), then we will invariably end up in mutually contradictory and mutually condemning ecclesial systems. This is not a mere hypothetical--this is, in fact, what the current state of affairs is. All those who embrace the "infallible interpreter" principle are demonstrably much more widely diverse than are all those who embrace the sola scriptura principle. In other words, if we do away with sola scriptura and embrace the infallible interpreter principle, the result is nothing but uncertain chaos and tens of thousands of mutually contradictory ecclesial groups. If, on the other hand, we do away with all infallible interpreters and embrace the sola scriptura principle, we get near unanimity in all essential areas of beliefs.