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

Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
6days said:
What a goofy conclusion. Shall we examine the history of groups who determined "truth" with scripture PLUS? Shall we look at the groups who have chosen to add teachings to scripture and ended on the broad path?
Click to expand...
You can start with the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects of Protestantism.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
CabinetMaker said:
I see what you did there! You attempted to yet again take faith away from God and focus it on history again. Specifically, the history of your chosen sect of Christianity. Faith in history is faith grossly misplaced.
Click to expand...
Feel free to actually disprove a single statement in Post #10 above. (Sorry, but mere disagreement just doesn't qualify.)
 
Last edited:
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
tetelestai said:
Yes, there is no logical explanation that is possible for claiming salvation is through Mary.
Click to expand...
...that you're aware of. Again, you believe only what you've been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Back to Post #20 above.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Cruciform said:
Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.​

QUESTION: How do your various Protestant (non-Catholic) doctrinal traditions account for this historical reality?
Click to expand...

Jesus was a heretic (according to the religious leaders of His day) who taught against the teaching of the Magisterium (Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers).

When Jesus spoke against the false teachings of the Magisterium, He would start identifying the false teachings by the statement, "You have heard that it was said".

When Jesus spoke according to Sola Scriptura, He would start with the statement, "It is written", like this statement of His against the Magisterium:

Mark 7:6
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.​

 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Cruciform said:
Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening Councils [15] and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline. For example, Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there. In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy.

In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from the Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.

Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to "prove" their claims. [16] The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius’ teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the Person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.

Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching authority to appeal to, then Arius’ error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at the time fell for the Arian heresy. [17] Even though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that he arrived at an heretical conclusion. It was the teaching authority of the Church – hierarchically constituted – which stepped in and declared he was wrong.​
Click to expand...
Whether Arius was correct or incorrect was hotly debated in the council for two months, so it was never a clear cut decision that Arianism was wrong, just a majority decision that was based on the disputation of the words used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.

Even after the council, Arianism has continued to be a belief held by a significant percent of Christians that study the Bible, where trinitarianism is universally held by Christians that rely on the traditions of their church instead of the Bible for their doctrines.

According to one of the few writings of Arius that survived, this is what the debate was all about:
_____
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.
— Theodoret: Arius's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters' Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41
_____​
 
6days

6days

New member
Cruciform said:
You can start with the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects of Protestantism.
Click to expand...
Yes Cruciform... many man made sects end up denying essential Christian doctrines when they adopt scripture PLUS as their authority.
I know you have a love for the Catholic 'scet', but if you are honest you will admit that both Catholics and Protestants have ended up denying doctrines such as the deity of Christ, by beliefs in scripture PLUS.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
6days said:
Yes Cruciform... many man made sects end up denying essential Christian doctrines when they adopt scripture PLUS as their authority.
Click to expand...
Your comments here assume the validity of the false 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, which is itself an entirely unbiblical invention of men [source].

I know you have a love for the Catholic 'sect'...
Click to expand...
No such thing. :nono:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
Last edited:
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Cruciform;4567325 [B said:
QUESTION: How do your various Protestant (non-Catholic) doctrinal traditions account for this historical reality?[/B]
Click to expand...
Well, how did works and indulgences, and the like invade the RC?

How was it that Jansenists were tossed out?

You often have a good deal of circular reasoning, which isn't necessarily bad, unless it is wrong and can be shown wrong. In these cases, the Magisterium and Traditions didn't protect the RC and at other times Scripture (Scriptura) did. Use the biblical internal evidence itself. There were times that scripture was used as the authority to settle issues.

So:
1) Magisterium and Traditions weren't the answer to heresy (again, or you'd not have had Jansenists for a couple of hundred years AND it was a mistake to throw them out, etc.)

2) Protestants aren't 'scripture only' (solo scriptura), but Scriptures as only authoritative in matters of conflict (Sola). We therefore, don't have JW's in 'our' church either. So it 'works' pretty well. We 'do' acknowledge the early creeds. We just don't think the RC is the same as it was when those were being written, now.

3) You had JW's (Arians) for nearly 100 years before ousting them and posthumously anathematizing Arius. Even the U.S. Government was calling JW's on their 'magic corn' and we didn't allow them in our churches off the bat. That means a) They did come from your own walls (couple of examples now) and b) you put up with heretics a LOT longer than we ever do/did. It is also worth mentioning that the 'us/them' is 'we' to certain degrees. We reject the bad, keep the good because 'we' (most of us) came from the RC too! We are a shining example that reflects back on the RC: How do your various... Catholic doctrinal traditions account for this [Protestant] historical reality? See? Circular reasoning.
:e4e:
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Lon said:
Well, how did works and indulgences, and the like invade the RC?
Click to expand...
Neither "invaded" the Church, but both have been part of Christian doctrine from the beginning.

How was it that Jansenists were tossed out?
Click to expand...
Addressed here.

You often have a good deal of circular reasoning, which isn't necessarily bad, unless it is wrong and can be shown wrong. In these cases, the Magisterium and Traditions didn't protect the RC and at other times Scripture (Scriptura) did. Use the biblical internal evidence itself. There were times that scripture was used as the authority to settle issues.
Click to expand...
Yes---by the Magisterium, and in light of Sacred Tradition. So, not by sola scriptura.

So:
1) Magisterium and Traditions weren't the answer to heresy...
Click to expand...
Never said they were. Rather, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are the rule of faith.

2) Protestants aren't 'scripture only' (solo scriptura), but Scriptures as only authoritative in matters of conflict (Sola).
Click to expand...
A distinction without a difference [source].

3) You had JW's (Arians) for nearly 100 years
Click to expand...
We didn't "have them" in the sense that you assume. Rather, this was a time when such doctrines had not yet been formally defined, and so were not yet considered officially heretical. Once the hypostatic union of Christ was formally defined, however, the issue was closed, and no further debate was required. At that point, one was required to either affirm and follow the Church's teaching, or reject it and experience the consequences.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top