For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
I don't recall that Apostle Paul or any of the authors of the Bible stated that any sort of attack on them personally meant it was an attack on the entire church. If so, please correct me.
For Protestants, everyone is their own little Pope. If they disagree, they just start their own "non-denominational" church. I have been a part of numerous "non-denominational" churches where the church is primarily ego-driven. Meaning, that if the main, "speaking" pastor leaves the church, the church is pretty much over.
This just doesn't make sense. The Church transcends any one "personality." The entire concept of "Church Discipline" is a complete joke for Protestants. Even looking at Henry VIII, who didn't like that the Pope didn't approve of his divorce, so he starts the Church of England.
The problem arises when you have little Popes who are essentially dialectically illiterate. They are entirely incapable of discerning good doctrine from bad doctrine. They are much better off simply being told what the correct doctrine is, at the threat of excommunication, and then implementing it in the love of Christ. Leave the theology to the people who are going to study church history all the way to the beginning.
But these "false-teachers" are allowed to teach in these false denominations. Or, they just state they are "non-denominational" without any sort of accountability that their doctrine is sound. And when I mean "sound," I mean true to the original intent of the authors of Scripture. We get all kinds of zaniness in interpretation of Scripture because these false-teachers don't care about what the original meaning of certain passages are all the way to the early church fathers. Without thousands of years of traditional interpretation to base their opinion on, they are left with the lens of Social Justice or whatever modern philosophy to "re-interpret" Scriptures.
On one side, you will have a church dialogue regarding gender roles that goes from 4,000 BC all the way to the 1970s. Then, some little-Pope comes in, and throws out the 6,000 year history of thought that had been stress-tested through the Lindy Effect, to reveal a brand-new concept called Feminism. He interprets Scripture through the modern lens, and because lay people are not educated enough about the 6,000 year history that the little-Pope is preaching about, they are lead astray.
Not everyone has the time to read hours about traditional gender roles over the 6,000 year history. They just assume the Pastor isn't feeding them a bunch of bull-shit. Of course, we are in the modern era, and I am thinking more people (at least men) are realizing the Churchian lies.
How can we have an inquisition when there is no central authority to commence?
In America, these little-Popes multiply like cockroaches and pop up quicker than you can burn. Certainly, many of these false-teachers need to be burned at the stake. Of course, this won't happen until the Catholics take back their church and start implementing Church Discipline on all that refuse to come under its authority. And perhaps one-day there will be a unified Church where excommunication actually means something.