Well I guess we can hazard a few answers:  remaining sin in believers, conflicting with the leading of the HS to the true interpretation, pride of party spirit, threatened personal interests, the difficulty of saying “I was wrong” when changing one’s mind, sheer lack of training in logical argumentation, etc.

Dan
No I don’t think I have a monopoly on the HS only guiding me.  The point I was making was we all claim we are guided by the HS.  The HS will not guide incorrectly.  So how do you explain different interpretations within the protestant churches.  Who decides who has the correct interpretation.  The whole idea of us determining our faith based solely on scripture alone is illogical.  The bible came after the church.  Scripture and Tradition (Tradition being what was always taught from the birth of the church).  In order words, oral and written tradition are our rule of faith.

I might just as well ask (as others already have) why there’s such theological diversity even within the RCC supposedly guided by the magisterium.  I could also ask why considerable differences have existed for centuries between Christian communions united by their rejection of sola scriptura, if that rejection is in fact the key to doctrinal unity.

You’ll have to explain to me why sola scriptura is illogical.  I consider it entirely internally consistent.

The complete Bible we now have dates to after Pentecost, yes, but God’s church in all ages has always been guided by previous revelations.  I see no reason to believe that that church before Christ had what could be described as a magisterium infallibly interpreting the teaching for them.

Dan
If individual Catholics believe something contrary to what the Church officially teaches, then it is not Catholic.
Sola scriptura is illogical because nowhere in the Bible does it say it.  The Catholic Church believes that the oral and written tradition are basically one of the same things.  They must go together.  They do not contradict.  The books of the bible were decided at the Council of Carthage.
You evade the question I put to you.  How do you explain the divisions within the protestant churches - those who use their base as scripture alone?

David,
Are we reading the same scripture?  1Peter 3 20-21 clearly speaks of baptism saving us. Nowhere is Peter talking about a repentant believer confessing his belief in Jesus Christ.  Peter says that baptism saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

OK Donna let’s look at the text

1 Peter 3:21 It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now—not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
New Jerusalem Bible

1 Peter 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-- not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
New Revised Standard Version

The person being baptised is appealing to God in their baptism. Peter says it is not the washing by the water which saves, but faith in Jesus Christ, expressed by the person being baptised.

Baptism is important, but the faith expressed by the person being baptised makes the baptism effective, not the immersion in water of itself.

David,
Peter does not say that it is not the washing of water that saves you.  Peter says that it is not the washing off of dirt.  A clear distinction.  He goes on to say that .."it saves you...” What was he referring to.  Baptism or the confession.  It makes sense that he was referring to baptism, as he was using the people on Noah’s boat being saved by the water as an analogy.

Dan
It seems you are not able to answer my question regarding divisions within protestant churches who use the bible as the sole rule of faith.  I have attempted to answer your objections - somewhat inadequately I know

David
Peter is making sure the reader is not confused about washing being confused with the cleansing of the body.  He is not dismissing the water at all.  It is the washing with water that saves through the resurrection...Sure we must also believe. 
John also talks about baptism.  “You must be born again of water and the spirit...”

Donna
If Peter was saying what you understand him to be saying, you would expect the text to say

not the removal of dirt from the flesh but the washing of the spirit.

Instead, Peter says

but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

While David has to infer confession from the first two phrases, which might be debated, he is closer to the text than you are.  On a quick reading of the text, Peter does not seem to specify the mechanism of appropriating that salvation (confession, faith, repentance, etc.).  Rather, he is pointing out that it is won for us by Jesus in his death and resurrection (see v18), which is pictured in baptism.
Regards,
Bob

And I confess one baptism for the remision of sins.....this is recited at every Holy Communion service by Bob.

It means what is says and the Bishops at Nicea preserving the Apostolic Faith affirmed the regenerative nature of baptism.

Not ONE Christian figure prior to Calvin denies the regenerative nature of baptism.

Not even Luther and Cranmer.....

In fact Donna, in the Book of Common Prayer ( 1662) , upheld by the so called conservative orthodox at GAFCON as definitive, the minister of bapism says this…

Now seeing that this child has been regenerate and grafyed into the body of Christ’s Church

Prior to this he has also prayed , “sanctify this water for the nmystical washing away of sin.!

Evangelical Anglicans have often eliminate these words..indeed CESA ( church of England in South Africa)have done so and the REC ( reformed Episcopal Church, boith represented at GAFCON>

Could I please raise another issue.  I watched the stations of the cross last night on SBS.  Beautifully done, and moving in its depiction of the sufferings of Christ for our sins. 

However I was very disturbed that after each section, after prayer was offered to “Our Father in heaven...”, prayer was also offered to Mary.  Mary, the heavenly mother figure, was hailed, and was asked to pray for us now and at our death. 

This in effect puts Mary up there on the same level as God, and implies she is more compassionate and likely to help us than Jesus himself. This is horribly wrong, and dishonouring to God and Jesus.

Also, God strictly commanded the Israelites not to pray to dead people.
Prayer to Mary, and to the ‘saints’, is prayer to dead humans, and is forbidden by God.

I have Roman Catholic relatives, fine people that I love, and I don’t want to upset them.  But they seem to have more respect and reverence for Mary than for God or Jesus.  It makes me sad.

Mary is not dead ...she is more alive than you and I....as are all those who die in the Lord.

Go to Revelation 5 and see the depiction of the Old Testamant and New Testament churches , (the 24 elders) offering up bowls of incense which are the prayers of the Saints.

The Saints are just men made perfect, and the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

So much more so for her, whom the Angel greeted as Hail, full of Grace.

If something is full, theer is no room for anything else.

If i can ask you to pray with me, I can ask a Saint in heaven to pray to God for me...the petition is pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 11:26 PM

Dan
It seems you are not able to answer my question regarding divisions within protestant churches who use the bible as the sole rule of faith.

Donna
It seems I was having a late supper with my wife, setting up a new electronic toy for our young daughter and then putting her to bed ;)

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 11:26 PM

Dan
If individual Catholics believe something contrary to what the Church officially teaches, then it is not Catholic.

The point is:  there are groups of “dissidents” within the church’s pale who aren’t excommunicated for their diversities.  The principal difference is one of appearance, since Protestantism has no common Papacy to pronounce a common “official” view on things.

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 11:26 PM

Sola scriptura is illogical because nowhere in the Bible does it say it.

I suggest you consider 2 Timothy 3:17 together with what e.g. 2 Peter tells us passim about what categories “scripture” includes.

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 11:26 PM

You evade the question I put to you.  How do you explain the divisions within the protestant churches - those who use their base as scripture alone?

I thought I had indicated the main likely reasons in my post at the top of page 4.  I commend it to you ;)

Meanwhile for your part you have omitted to explain how the various proponents of ‘suprema ecclesia’ do not agree on several things.

Dan
2 Tim 3 16 does not tell us what scripture is included in the canon.  That was decided at the Council of Carthage.  All Paul was saying was that scripture was inspired by God etc.  I have never disagreed with this.  The point I was making was that how do you know what Jesus intended to be used as the Bible.  He did not tell anyone that certain books or letters should be included.  The Church did that!
On the issue of divisions - you sort of answer my objection.  Yes the protestant church has many divisions and they are left to their own devices because you don’t have a teaching authority to guide you.  My point exactly!  So please explain how the Holy Spirit can cause so much division.

I think I answered you clearly regarding different ‘factions’ within the Catholic Church.  There is one faith, if you detract from it in anyway, it is not considered to be Catholic.  In some cases, people are excommunicated.