ECT NOTABLE HERETICS THROUGHOUT CHRISTIAN HISTORY HAVE BASED HERESIES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...

Many individuals throughout Christian history have presumed to replace the formally established and authoritatively binding doctrines of Christ's one historic Church with their own interpretive preferences and theological opinions. Examples of such individuals would include Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Apollinarius....

Protestants agree with Catholics that Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Apollinarius, and Bruno were all formal heretics who had departed from the established and authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.

Now note that the very same historic Christian Church also formally condemned Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin as heretics of the identical sort as Arius, Pelagius, and the rest. Yet, Protestants---who accept the Church's decree regarding the heretical character of the theological opinions of Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Apollinarius, and Bruno---simultaneously reject the same Church's identical decree with respect to the doctrinal opinions of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

In light of these facts, I repeat my question:
"What doctrinal authority did Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin possess to impose their interpretive preferences on the Church that, say, Arius, Pelagius, and Sabellius did not?"

Thank you for laying this out. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt in hopes you understood the distinction between doctrinal heresy being dealt with by the early church militant versus calls for return to the Apostolic teachings of Scripture that were met with entrenchment and disdain, thereby divesting a group's claim to being a church void. But, you have disappointed with your treatment above, laced with the usual Romanist story lines.

Each time you write "Church" in your mind it is Romanism as it is now and was after Rome laid claim to being the leader of all Christendom. You continue to ignore the heresies answered at Nicea by the church (see that small "c"?) was not the Rome of the 13th century and forward. Rather at the time of these heresies it was simply the visible church militant at Nicea, were they were denounced, not by Papal decrees or bulls, but simply the church militant speaking in one mind against error at the time these controversies were beginning to lead many astray.

You simply cannot claim the Rome you serve now is the same Rome of the third century. That is wrong on so many levels, not to mention your blind following Rome as she papers over all her internal divisions, anachronisms, and abundant fallibility, yet while asserting her own perfection.

Have you bothered to check the facts of history about church development from a few sources that are not tied to Rome?

http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-Volume-One-Pre-Reformation-ebook/dp/B00CW4VQ4Q/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D30RKE

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O7UPECI

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Theological-Perspectives-Post-Vatican-Catholicism/dp/0820469556

http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholic-Theology-Practice-Evangelical/dp/1433501163

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077

Are you unwilling to put your confidence in Rome to the test by venturing outside its walls to honestly examine what others have to say?

If you avail yourself of some non-Rome historical studies, you will learn that in the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome started claiming more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. Schism with the East soon followed and Rome was on a downward spiral towards the full aspostacy it made clear at Trent.

Men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were within their duty to come out from a church that had abandoned its Scriptural basis for being called "church". It is not schism to break away from an apostate church. It is a schism to remain in an apostate church, since to remain in an apostate church is to separate from the true church of Jesus Christ. Of course, per Vatican I we Protestants were all schismatics and heretics, but strangely by the time of Vatican II, we were merely "separated brethren". Yet another counter-example of claimed Roman monolithicity.

These are the unadulterated facts of the history of the church. You can deny them, but it does not change them.

AMR

 

[Cruciform]

What straw man?

The misrepresentation of my position that you offerred in Post #98 as "having no answer" is a straightforward Straw Man Fallacy. So much for your so-called "obvious conclusion."

 

[CabinetMaker]

The misrepresentation of my position that you offerred in Post #98 as "having no answer" is a straightforward Straw Man Fallacy. So much for your so-called "obvious conclusion."

You posted no answer ergo you have nat answered. If somebody asks you a question, several times, and go to great effort to not answer that question, a perfectly reasonable conclusion is that you cannot answer the question. Claiming a straw man looks like you are trying to distract people from the fact that you did not answer the question by making people think you are being asked unfair questions.

 

[Cruciform]

But, you have disappointed with your treatment above, laced with the usual Romanist story lines.

No doubt you would prefer a scenario laced with the usual Reformed Protestant story lines, but those weren't fabricated until a mere few centuries ago.

Each time you write "Church" in your mind it is Romanism...

Incorrect. Rather, the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself is the Catholic Church. ("Romanism" is your pejorative, and inaccurate, label.)

You continue to ignore the heresies answered at Nicea by the church (see that small "c"?) was not the Rome of the 13th century and forward.

Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since I never claimed that the Church of 325 A.D. was "the Rome of the 13th century." Perhaps you could learn to represent your opponent's position without distorting it?

Rather at the time of these heresies it was simply the visible church militant at Nicea..

...a formal council of the Catholic Church.

...they were denounced, not by Papal decrees or bulls...

A rather odd assertion, since the Council was officially ratified by Pope Sylvester I---thus making it a Catholic Council---and was attended and voted upon by numerous Catholic bishops (all voting members were bishops), whose decrees as a body were considered authoritative and binding upon the Christian faithful. Try again.

You simply cannot claim the Rome you serve now is the same Rome of the third century.

The Church has certainly developed and grown over the centuries, just as Jesus said it would (Mt. 13:31-32), but it is the very same Church in its essence, also just as Jesus indicated it would be (Mt. 16:18). Jesus founded a single historic Church (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15)---not churchES---and declared that it would never cease to exist (Mt. 16:18). Your assumption of Restoration Theology, however, makes Jesus Christ into a liar (Prov. 19:5).

...not to mention your blind following Rome...

No more so than your "blind devotion" to the interpretations and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

...as she papers over all her internal divisions...

Example...?

...anachronisms...

Example...?

...and abundant fallibility...

Example...?

...yet while asserting her own perfection.

The doctrine of infallibility applies specifically to the Church's formal doctrines on matters of faith and morals. She is not infallible in and of herself, but solely due to the supernatural protection of the Holy Spirit. Your implication otherwise is simply erroneous.

Have you bothered to check the facts of history about church development from a few sources that are not tied to Rome?

You just cannot seem to believe that someone could possibly be fully aware of the historical facts and adequately informed by all the relevant historiographical material, and then---on that very basis---make a fully-informed decision to abandon a lifetime of Evangelical Protestantism in order to join himself to the one historic Catholic Church. Yet that is precisely what I and a great many others have been compelled to do, often at great personal cost.

To answer your question, then, yes. I have indeed studied widely in the historical sources---both Protestant as well as Catholic, and secular also---at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and have done so for some three decades now. It is highly unlikely that you could offer an argument against the Catholic Church that I have not already encountered dozens of times in countless historical and theological sources. So it appears that your assumption of Catholics as not possibly informed on the facts is simply that---an assumption. Looks like you need to drastically alter your expectations. Your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has apparently failed to adequately inform your "understanding" about the Catholic Church and her history, teachings, and practices.

http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-Volume-One-Pre-Reformation-ebook/dp/B00CW4VQ4Q/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D30RKE

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O7UPECI

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Theological-Perspectives-Post-Vatican-Catholicism/dp/0820469556

http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholic-Theology-Practice-Evangelical/dp/1433501163

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077

I've read most of these, a couple of them years ago. I look forward to working through Allison's book, though I don't really expect to come across any anti-Catholic argument that hasn't already been covered in other books of the same type. (I am open to the possibility, however.)

Are you unwilling to put your confidence in Rome to the test by venturing outside its walls to honestly examine what others have to say?

Again, your assumption that I haven't already done so is wildly inaccurate. And, of course, I could very well issue the same challenge to you regarding Catholic sources. (I can provide you with a lengthy book list, if you like.)

If you avail yourself of some non-Rome historical studies...

Answered above.

Men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were within their duty to come out from a church that had abandoned its Scriptural basis for being called "church". It is not schism to break away from an apostate church.

Again:

"What doctrinal authority did Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin possess to impose their interpretive preferences on the Church that, say, Arius, Pelagius, and Sabellius did not?"​

It is a schism to remain in an apostate church...

This brings up the above question once more. What doctrinal authority did, say, Luther possess that would allow him to impose his personal individual opinions concerning what was or was not "apostate," over and above---and against---the Magisterium (Body of Bishops) as a whole? Before answering, please carefully consider this.

Of course, per Vatican I we Protestants were all schismatics and heretics, but strangely by the time of Vatican II, we were merely "separated brethren".

Once again, you merely display your fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Luther was a formal heretic; you, however, since you are not personally responsible for the heresies of the original "reformers," cannot properly be termed a "heretic." You do, however, qualify as a schismatic (good news, right?).

These are the unadulterated facts of the history of the church. You can deny them, but it does not change them.

Right back at you, friend.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

You posted no answer ergo you have not answered.

"Have not answered" does not equate to "has no answer." Try again.

...making people think you are being asked unfair questions.

Rather, off-topic questions. If you want my answer, you'll need to start a different thread.

 

[CabinetMaker]

"Have not answered" does not equate to "has no answer." Try again.n

Well, there is a meaningless distinction if I ever saw one. You have given no answer. Wether it is because you have no answer, aren't allowed to answer or what is rather irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that you were asked if Jusus taught Marian doctrines or the selling of indulgences and you gave no answer. Reasonable conclusion, Jesus did not teach these things.

Rather, off-topic questions. If you want my answer, you'll need to start a different thread.

And your final dodge to avoid dealing with an inconvenient truth.

 

[Cruciform]

Well, there is a meaningless distinction if I ever saw one. You have given no answer. Wether it is because you have no answer, aren't allowed to answer or what is rather irrelevant.

It's certainly relevant with reference to the reality of the situation---that is, as related to truth.

And your final dodge to avoid dealing with an inconvenient truth.

No "dodge" whatsoever; just start another thread.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It's certainly relevant with reference to the reality of the situation---that is, as related to truth.

As you gave no answer, the only truth that remains is that Jesus never taught your doctrines and you cannot honestly say that He did.

No "dodge" whatsoever; just start another thread.

Why? You'll just dodge it there as well as you have on every other thread you have been on when asked to show where Jesus or His Apostles ever taught the Marian doctrines or the selling of indulgences or the infallibility of the Pope, the concept of a pope.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

To answer your question, then, yes. I have indeed studied widely in the historical sources---both Protestant as well as Catholic, and secular also---at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and have done so for some three decades now.

I've read most of these, a couple of them years ago. I look forward to working through Allison's book, though I don't really expect to come across any anti-Catholic argument that hasn't already been covered in other books of the same type. (I am open to the possibility, however.)

If you think these are anti-Rome screeds you will be disappointed. Just the plain facts of history.

No one making your statements above in honesty would then declare what you have declared time and again concerning your accounts of church history. You simply ignore what you read, forget what you learned, and return to the accounts of Rome as wants to paint its history. With a wave of the hand you dismiss what you have read and retreat to Rome's accounts.

Your often asked question about the reformers seeking reform of the church illustrates the misunderstanding of "church". Romanists enjoy asking where was my church before the Reformation. Others often take the bait and grant this erroneous premise currency where none is warranted. Rather, the answer to the question is simple: my church has always been there.

The reformers saw themselves as calling upon the church of Rome to reform back to the teachings of Scripture. Contra that Saju Davis linked item, which confuses the authority of ordained servants with the admonishment of all the faithful to keep the faith, the duty of all members of the invisible church is to preserve that which was received in faith. The lawful exercise of that duty to preserve is prescribed in the visible church's rules of keeping the peace based upon Scripture.

We are exhorted to follow peace with all men, not absolutely, but so far only as it is consistent with holiness, and may be lawfully practicable. To cleave to the Lord, to cultivate fellowship with Him in the way He has prescribed, and to follow Him wherever He goes, constitute the primary object to be kept in view by Christians. Fellowship with men is secondary and subordinate; we are bound to forego and relinquish the latter whenever it is found incompatible with the former.

No particular church has any promise securing her continuance in the faith and in purity of communion, consequently, none can have right to claim perpetual or inviolable union with her, or to denounce persons as schismatics simply on the ground of their withdrawing from her pale and declining her authority.

When church once reformed and faithful not only departs from what she had professed and received, and persists in this by series of public acts, but also restrains all due freedom in testifying against her defection or when she adopts doctrines inconsistent with her former scriptural profession and engagements, and imposes these by the perverted exercise of authority and discipline, separation from her communion is lawful.

When the public profession and administrations of church have been settled conformably to the laws of Christ, and sanctioned by the most solemn engagements, if the majority shall set these aside, and erect new constitution sinfully defective, and involving material renunciation of the former, the minority refusing to accede to this, adhering to their engagements, and continuing to maintain communion on the original terms, cannot justly be charged with schism.

Accordingly, per the above, schism and separation are not convertible terms, nor are the things signified by them necessarily of the same kind. Schism is always evil, separation may be either good or evil, according to circumstances. To constitute the former, schism, there must be violation of some of the scriptural bonds of unity in the body of Christ. It presupposes church formed and constituted by the authority and according to the laws of Christ, and an administration corresponding to the nature, character, and design of such society, at least so far as that persons may belong to it without sin, and hold communion with it consistently with that regard which they owe to their spiritual safety and edification.

The Christian church is not an arbitrary institution of men—not mere voluntary association of any number of people, for any purpose, and on any terms, which to them may seem good nor has its communion been left vague and undetermined by the laws of its founder. It is not schism to refuse submission to human constitutions, though they may be called churches, and may have religion some way for their object, nor to refuse conformity to such terms as men may be pleased to impose without warrant from the word of God, whether these constitutions and terms proceed from the lust of power, or from the pride of wisdom, and whether they be intended to forward the policy of states men, to feed the ambition of churchmen, or to flatter the humors of the hoi polloi.

After many and long bloodlet attempts to reform her of her errors, the Reformers rightfully separated from Rome's cruel hand and departure from the Gospel she had once received.

AMR

 

[geralduk]

Sola scriptura was an answer at the reformation to the Roman churches idea that her man made traditions ,cunningly devised fables and grave errors were of greater authority than the scriptures.
All of which were proved beyond all reasonable doubt on the one hand by biblical argument and on the other by her violent reactions to the truth and the corrections and reproof of scripture .
"For all scripture si given by inspiration of God and is good for correction and reproof and instruction in righteousness............."
But despite all the proof both by scripture and by her own wicked reactions she still teaches the same grave errors ,cunningly devised fables,man made traditions and her 'immaculate conceptions ' that dazzle the imagination but blind the mind to the truth .

But now we have a truth of sola scriptura taken out of context and forget that not only MUST you be BORN again by the Word and the Spirit .
But even as a mans words cannot be heard or understood unless he gives his breath or life to his words .So too and all the more can God not be heard or understood unless he gives His Spirit to his Word also .
"For the letter killeth" but the Spirit giveth life"

Thus if we are true BORN children of God then the Spirit of truth abides in us and we do by Him " know the spirit of error "
Thus by the scriptures alone we know error when we see it .
and by the Spirit of truth do we know error when we hear it .

and the Roman church adding error to error now claims she is infallible in her errors. What hope then has she for she can by that even greater error never be corrected or reproved !

only God is infallible.

and while a man may see the truth, can hear the truth ,can know the truth . he can speak the truth and the truth can be in him. he can walk in the truth and even do the truth . But even with all that ,no man can say (save Jesus) "I am the truth "
At best he can be like the moon ,while having no light of her own nevertheless when she still shines in the darkest night she bares witness that the suns till shines and that there is coming a perfect day .
Jesus said "after that the holy Spirit has come upon you and shall eb IN you ye shall be my witnesses "
the church of Rome is her own witness .

 

[chrysostom]

At best he can be like the moon ,while having no light of her own nevertheless when she still shines in the darkest night she bares witness that the suns till shines and that there is coming a perfect day .
.

interesting

that is what origen said about the church

many are now reflecting different lights
and
there is only one thing they agree on

they don't like the light reflected by the church

 

[Cruciform]

As you gave no answer, the only truth that remains is that Jesus never taught your doctrines and you cannot honestly say that He did.

Non Sequitur Fallacy.

Why? You'll just dodge it there as well...

Your transparent excuse is noted.

...as you have on every other thread you have been on when asked to show where Jesus or His Apostles ever taught the Marian doctrines or the selling of indulgences or the infallibility of the Pope, the concept of a pope.

You're a liar (Prov. 19:5).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

If you think these are anti-Rome screeds you will be disappointed. Just the plain facts of history.

The opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

No one making your statements above in honesty would then declare what you have declared time and again concerning your accounts of church history. You simply ignore what you read, forget what you learned, and return to the accounts of Rome as wants to paint its history. With a wave of the hand you dismiss what you have read and retreat to Rome's accounts.

You simply cannot seem to grasp that not everyone is as uncritically and naively impressed by the ecclesiology promoted by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect as you are. In any case, I could direct your statement above right back at you yourself, and it would apply quite well.

Your often asked question about the reformers seeking reform of the church illustrates the misunderstanding of "church".

Again, only according to the opinions that you have derived from your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Sola scriptura was an answer at the reformation to the Roman churches idea that her man made traditions ,cunningly devised fables and grave errors were of greater authority than the scriptures.All of which were proved beyond all reasonable doubt on the one hand by biblical argument and on the other by her violent reactions to the truth and the corrections and reproof of scripture ."For all scripture si given by inspiration of God and is good for correction and reproof and instruction in righteousness............."
But despite all the proof both by scripture and by her own wicked reactions she still teaches the same grave errors ,cunningly devised fables,man made traditions and her 'immaculate conceptions ' that dazzle the imagination but blind the mind to the truth .But now we have a truth of sola scriptura taken out of context and forget that not only MUST you be BORN again by the Word and the Spirit .
But even as a mans words cannot be heard or understood unless he gives his breath or life to his words .So too and all the more can God not be heard or understood unless he gives His Spirit to his Word also ."For the letter killeth" but the Spirit giveth life"Thus if we are true BORN children of God then the Spirit of truth abides in us and we do by Him " know the spirit of error "Thus by the scriptures alone we know error when we see it .and by the Spirit of truth do we know error when we hear it .and the Roman church adding error to error now claims she is infallible in her errors. What hope then has she for she can by that even greater error never be corrected or reproved !only God is infallible.and while a man may see the truth, can hear the truth ,can know the truth . he can speak the truth and the truth can be in him. he can walk in the truth and even do the truth . But even with all that ,no man can say (save Jesus) "I am the truth "At best he can be like the moon ,while having no light of her own nevertheless when she still shines in the darkest night she bares witness that the suns till shines and that there is coming a perfect day .Jesus said "after that the holy Spirit has come upon you and shall eb IN you ye shall be my witnesses "the church of Rome is her own witness .

The entirely non-authoritative opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Non Sequitur Fallacy.

You gave no answer. You made no effort to address the question I asked. That is a simple fact.

Your transparent excuse is noted.

You say this and the call me a liar...

You're a liar (Prov. 19:5).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Which you immediately follow up with these two "responses".

The opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.


You simply cannot seem to grasp that not everyone is as uncritically and naively impressed by the ecclesiology promoted by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect as you are. In any case, I could direct your statement above right back at you yourself, and it would apply quite well.


Again, only according to the opinions that you have derived from your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The entirely non-authoritative opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

Do tell, if this is the best you can do, what can we reasonably expect from you if were to start another thread asking you to show us where Jesus taught the RCC doctrines previously listed?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do tell, if this is the best you can do, what can we reasonably expect from you if were to start another thread asking you to show us where Jesus taught the RCC doctrines previously listed?

One wonders what a thread would contain from him, concerning Mary's perpetual viginity: before birth, during birth, and after birth is de fide. The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. states that, in addition to conceiving Christ without the seed of man, that She gives birth to Him ‘without any detriment to Her virginity.’ The Council of course goes on to say that Her virginity "remained inviolable even after His birth."

Just less than 50 years later, at the Council of Toledo, in 693, the Church teaches the doctrine very clearly: And, as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also She experienced no loss of Her integrity, for She conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin.

Sigh. Such is what happens when tradition upon tradition upon tradition is added as unsupported scaffolding to Scripture.

AMR

 

[brewmama]

One wonders what a thread would contain from him, concerning Mary's perpetual viginity: before birth, during birth, and after birth is de fide. The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. states that, in addition to conceiving Christ without the seed of man, that She gives birth to Him ‘without any detriment to Her virginity.’ The Council of course goes on to say that Her virginity "remained inviolable even after His birth."

Just less than 50 years later, at the Council of Toledo, in 693, the Church teaches the doctrine very clearly: And, as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also She experienced no loss of Her integrity, for She conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin.

Sigh. Such is what happens when tradition upon tradition upon tradition is added as unsupported scaffolding to Scripture.

AMR

And yet even the reformers believed as much. It has been believed for 2000 years and is still believed by most Christians today...You are the one who has unsupported scaffolding

http://aleteia.org/2013/10/10/a-protestant-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/

 

[Cruciform]

You gave no answer. You made no effort to address the question I asked. That is a simple fact.

Your statement in Post #108 engages in the Non Sequitur Fallacy. That is a simple fact.

You say this and the call me a liar...

Your statement in Post #112 was a straightforward lie (Prov. 19:5).

Do tell, if this is the best you can do...

Rather, it's all I need to do.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

One wonders what a thread would contain from him, concerning Mary's perpetual viginity: before birth, during birth, and after birth is de fide.

I would be happy to provide you with the historic Catholic teaching on the subject. Perhaps you should begin a thread that concisely states your question.

 

[False Prophet]

Indulgences and Investiture come from traditions rather than the Word of God.