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

[Lon]

Not just here!!! AMR has been boring many others with this same tired old copy and paste spam on many other internet forums for years.

Don't take the bait!

He will of course receive the ultimate answer in good time. Lord have mercy on his poor deluded soul.

:yawn:

God Bless!

Well, the rebuttal should be just as readily available then, shouldn't it? Did you post the rebuttal? Who has it? :idunno:

 

[TulipBee]

Right back at you. :yawn:

Baitless chiefs sleep

 

[Cruciform]

Another non answer from our Romanist champion.

Rather, a simple objective observation, which stands exactly as posted.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Rather, a simple objective observation, which stands exactly as posted.

Why, thank you. It was a simple observation that you did not respond and it does stand exactly as I posted.

 

[Cruciform]

Yowch, not when he cited his sources. If you did answer prior, it'd be a good time to cart out the rebuttal link.

Here you go, and here, and here. Old news. :yawn:

 

[Cruciform]

Why, thank you. It was a simple observation that you did not respond and it does stand exactly as I posted.

How old are you...?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Not just here!!! AMR has been boring many others with this same tired old copy and paste spam on many other internet forums for years.

Prove it. What forums? :AMR:

AMR

 

[CabinetMaker]

How old are you...?

Same age as you.

 

[Lon]

Not just here!!! AMR has been boring many others with this same tired old copy and paste spam on many other internet forums for years.

Don't take the bait!

He will of course receive the ultimate answer in good time. Lord have mercy on his poor deluded soul.

:yawn:

God Bless!

Prove it. What forums? :AMR:

AMR

Could be a lot of serious repercussions. 1) Someone using your material not so skillfully? 2) A bit of mistaken identity false accusation? (time out time?) 3) Bad form apologetics by drive-by Catholics? 4)

 

[Lon]

Here you go, and here, and here. Old news. :yawn:

Okay from reading them, here is what I think was addressed and what wasn't:

Note the Romanist's tactic in claiming that the ecumenical councils are their own doing.

Actually, the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea (325 AD), demonstrates that Rome did not hold the place of preeminence amongst the bishops (overseers, presbyters). The church condemning the heresies dealt with at Nicea is nothing in resemblance to what Romanism became and is today. They just want to co-opt history and claim they have existed since the time of the Apostles. This is the typical use of anachronistic apologetics Romanists are guilty of using time and again.

Cruc, from what I could tell you agreed with his information. I'm not sure if you want to comment on problems with Catholic Apologists that don't agree and seem to misuse these kinds of apologetics. James White (some of AMR's links) points to a similar problem with fuzzy Catholic Apologetics. Why is that? Do you guys use the same sources for apologetics? Get trained by the same people? (curiosity/inquiry/wondering how such would be propagated)

Do not buy into the Romanists “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric.

Cruc, it seems to me you agreed with him on this as well, so that might explain the yawn. Being that we are talking about 2k years, there is a lot of information to sift through so I don't always know when you agree, disagree, or what specifically is the difference always so thanks for the links given.

The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.

Cruci, I am not sure whether you embraced this or not. I'm not sure how far to take 'Of course not.' It seems you agreed but this paragraph may need more input than the links. I'm was able to read and understand much of where you agreed and disagreed but some of this may be left untouched yet.

Even Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” From Unity Faith and Order - Dialogues - Anglican Roman Catholic Authority in the Church II (Anglican/Roman Catholic Joint Preparatory Commission), paragraph 2, 6.).

Cruc, I didn't see anything addressing the direct quote.

So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even Ratzinger acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).

I think the good thing about a debate of this nature is that the source material is readily available for the most part. It isn't too difficult to check facts. Again, however, I don't recall any of the links touching on direct quotes, and it was these I was looking for redress that I could read. When it comes to direct quotes from one's own sources, I think there needs to be something substantive (not that you have to be the one reinventing the wheel, I was thinking 1) since the claim was it was addressed and 2) from dona regarding multiple websites, that a direct rebuttal would rather be ready reference work.

Gregory the Great expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).

Though I don't think I've seen a direct address, I think I've seen some more casual response between Chick Tracks and the like on this particular vein, but if you have an official link in response to this, that's be icing, though not unfamiliar to me on the general scheme of debate, I don't believe, on this one. Thanks.

In other words, Rome's claims today are their own mythologies, not the reality of history. Sadly, many Protestants and Romanists swallow Rome's public relations machine outputs without careful scrutiny. Don't take the bait.

AMR

I think this part more to the Protestant than Catholics. It is a wrap-up and summary advice.

Thanks for a bit of your time, AMR and Cruci. -Lon

 

[Cruciform]

Same age as you.

One would certainly never know it based on your desperately childish reply in Post #64 above. If you don't have a meaningful response, just say so, or don't bother replying at all.

 

[CabinetMaker]

One would certainly never know it based on your desperately childish reply in Post #64 above. If you don't have a meaningful response, just say so, or don't bother replying at all.

You don't. When you run out of things to say all do so post links or reference a post or, as you did with AMR's post, attempt to make think people you are just to great to be bothered with actually dealing with the points raised by others. If you want others to actually take you seriously, then spend some serious time to reply to what people actually say in your own words. If you are not willing to do that, then you will continue to be mocked.

 

[Cruciform]

You don't. When you run out of things to say all do so post links or reference a post...

That is, provide information in support of my position. Is that what you did in Post #64 above? No? My comment stands.

 

[WizardofOz]

Note the Romanist's tactic in claiming that the ecumenical councils are their own doing.

Actually, the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea (325 AD), demonstrates that Rome did not hold the place of preeminence amongst the bishops (overseers, presbyters). The church condemning the heresies dealt with at Nicea is nothing in resemblance to what Romanism became and is today. They just want to co-opt history and claim they have existed since the time of the Apostles. This is the typical use of anachronistic apologetics Romanists are guilty of using time and again.

Do not buy into the Romanists “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric.

The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.

Even Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” From Unity Faith and Order - Dialogues - Anglican Roman Catholic Authority in the Church II (Anglican/Roman Catholic Joint Preparatory Commission), paragraph 2, 6.).

So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even Ratzinger acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).

Gregory the Great expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).

In other words, Rome's claims today are their own mythologies, not the reality of history. Sadly, many Protestants and Romanists swallow Rome's public relations machine outputs without careful scrutiny. Don't take the bait.

AMR

Bump in hope of a proper rebuttal rather than a post only alluding to one...

 

[CabinetMaker]

That is, provide information in support of my position. Is that what you did in Post #64 above? No? My comment stands.

Your links provide no information that persuades. Sure, it's what you think is true but it's obviously not important enough to you to defend or discuss.

Posting a reference to another post us just flat out lazy on your part. Again, you lack the courage of your convictions to engage people.

You set the standard of interaction that you prefer so my post was in exactly the style you use. You didn't like it much, did you. Maybe you should consider that when composing your posts.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You don't. When you run out of things to say all do so post links or reference a post or, as you did with AMR's post, attempt to make think people you are just to great to be bothered with actually dealing with the points raised by others. If you want others to actually take you seriously, then spend some serious time to reply to what people actually say in your own words. If you are not willing to do that, then you will continue to be mocked.

As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of something in the face of Scripture.

Per here:
“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.”

How small you may ask? I am glad you asked.

“The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined”
[Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59]

Better we provide the interpretations to the Romanist in hopes Rome will take them into account and repent:

"...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack"
[Src: PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].

But the Romanist dare not tread into these turbulent waters. Rome does not deny the intelligibility and perspicuity of Scripture, rather it affirms Scripture is only intelligible and lucid to the magisterium. Crucible is just being a consistent Roman Catholic by not appealing to Scripture to justify Romanism. Rather he points to Rome's authority to defend Rome's claims. Romanists like Crucible understand that their authority is Rome, hence Scripture is useless since any interpretation of any passage of Scripture he may appeal to must await Rome's adjudication for the Romanist to actually know what Scripture is saying. Crucible wisely knows that anytime he presumes to present some interpretation of Scripture, the knowledgeable Protestant need only remind him that he cannot possibly really know what he is talking about if he is a consistent Roman Catholic.

Given Rome's slow march towards infallibly interpreting Scripture—most studies say around seven verses have been so done by the magisterium—folks like Crucible spend their lives in a sort of Scriptural limbo, never quite able to state with conviction "thus sayeth the Lord". When pointed to this or that in Scripture, the Romanist must first "check in" with what, if anything, Rome has to say on the topic. This is smart thinking by Rome, for it prevents the laity from ever really digging too deep and perhaps begin to question exactly what he has been fed by Rome.

AMR

 

[Cruciform]

Your links provide no information that persuades.

Whether or not you are ultimately persuaded by the information is entirely up to you. It's the same reply that I give to atheists.

Posting a reference to another post us just flat out lazy on your part.

Even if true (it isn't), this in no way removes from you the responsibility of honestly, accurately, and seriously considering its content---something of which you have shown yourself to be entirely incapable.

You set the standard of interaction that you prefer so my post was in exactly the style you use.

Please cite the number of the post in which I supposedly resorted to the childishness of your comments in Post #64 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Whether or not you are ultimately persuaded by the information is entirely up to you. It's the same reply that I give to atheists.


Even if true (it isn't), this in no way removes from you the responsibility of honestly, accurately, and seriously considering its content---something of which you have shown yourself to be entirely incapable.


Please cite the number of the post in which I supposedly resorted to the childishness of your comments in Post #64 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Post 77.

 

[Cruciform]

Post 77.

Indeed. :up:

 

[Cruciform]

As soon as...

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