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

[CabinetMaker]

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

So asking a question that you won't answer is a non sequitur fallacy on my part? How do you figure that.

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

It wasn't a lie, it is a statement of fact. If you disagree, by all means, post your support.

Rather, it's all I need to do.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

But you didn't actually do anything. I guess nothing is all you've got to offer.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And yet even the reformers believed as much.

Some indeed believed in some manner of perpetual virginity, not necessarily perpetual intact virginity.

The site linked displays the usual Romanist's fast and loose handling of facts. For example, in the inferring that Calvin defended the concept when he thought it much ado about nothing. Of course the Romanist post at the site omits:

"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."

src: Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels : Calvin's Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Sigh. You Romanist apologist wannabes cannot help yourselves in your desperation.

It has been believed for 2000 years and is still believed by most Christians today...

It has been believed by some for 2000 years and is still believed by some Christians today. Just thought I would correct your sweeping generalizations, especially since I know you lump Romanists into the nose counts.

I never have a problem admitting when some luminary from the past is wrong. Fortunately, we Reformed recognize that the Protestant church, not being infallible, can err, has erred, will err. There is one error, however, which the Protestant church has not made, and that is the greatest error of them all—the error of thinking it cannot err. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Some indeed believed in some manner of perpetual virginity, not necessarily perpetual intact virginity.

The site linked displays the usual Romanist's fast and loose handling of facts. For example, in the inferring that Calvin defended the concept when he thought it much ado about nothing. Of course the Romanist post at the site omits:

"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."

src: Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels : Calvin's Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Sigh. You Romanist apologist wannabes cannot help yourselves in your desperation.


It has been believed by some for 2000 years and is still believed by some Christians today. Just thought I would correct your sweeping generalizations, especially since I know you lump Romanists into the nose counts.

I never have a problem admitting when some luminary from the past is wrong. Fortunately, we Reformed recognize that the Protestant church, not being infallible, can err, has erred, will err. There is one error, however, which the Protestant church has not made, and that is the greatest error of them all—the error of thinking it cannot err. :AMR:

AMR

Having had many discussions with high Calvinists, you need to repent of that remark.

 

[chrysostom]

what is worse than sola scripture?

sola passage

what is worse than that?

an error in translating that single passage

like what?

rightly dividing

you won't find it in the original greek bible
but
some need it
so
they can ignore
what Jesus said
and
what the apostles wrote

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

what is worse than sola scripture?

sola passage

what is worse than that?

an error in translating that single passage

like what?

rightly dividing

you won't find it in the original greek bible
but
some need it
so
they can ignore
what Jesus said
and
what the apostles wrote

Straightly cutting, same thing. And you ignore Paul's definition of "the word of truth". Why?
You ignore what "Jesus" said in many places, by the way.

 

[Cruciform]

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

The first is discussed here. The second is not a formal doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[brewmama]

Some indeed believed in some manner of perpetual virginity, not necessarily perpetual intact virginity.

The site linked displays the usual Romanist's fast and loose handling of facts. For example, in the inferring that Calvin defended the concept when he thought it much ado about nothing. Of course the Romanist post at the site omits:

"The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."

src: Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels : Calvin's Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Sigh. You Romanist apologist wannabes cannot help yourselves in your desperation.


It has been believed by some for 2000 years and is still believed by some Christians today. Just thought I would correct your sweeping generalizations, especially since I know you lump Romanists into the nose counts.

I never have a problem admitting when some luminary from the past is wrong. Fortunately, we Reformed recognize that the Protestant church, not being infallible, can err, has erred, will err. There is one error, however, which the Protestant church has not made, and that is the greatest error of them all—the error of thinking it cannot err. :AMR:

AMR

You do realize that you quote Calvin on something that was not in the least discussed- a true straw man argument. Trying to change the subject?

I will agree with you on this: the Protestant church, not being infallible, can err, has erred, will err.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"Other"

Sigh.

AMR

 

[Cruciform]

So asking a question that you won't answer is a non sequitur fallacy on my part? How do you figure that.

In Post #8, you offer a conclusion that simply does not follow from the premises, which is---by definition---a Non Sequitur Fallacy. My statement therefore stands.

It wasn't a lie, it is a statement of fact.

...which is merely another lie (Prov. 19:5).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

In Post #8, you offer a conclusion that simply does not follow from the premises, which is---by definition---a Non Sequitur Fallacy. My statement therefore stands.


...which is merely another lie (Prov. 19:5).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Let's see, I laid out a question and stated two potential outcomes based on your answer to the question. You failed to answer the question as you provided nothing indicating that Jesus taught the Marian doctrines or the selling of ndulgences. The conclusion, supported by Scrioture, is that Jesus never taught those things. You can claim any fallacy that you want but everybody reading this thread sees the same thing, you cannot defend your doctrines based on Christ's actual teachings.

 

[TulipBee]

The bible is the only thing that survived and that's sola scriptura. It's the only thing that tells us to protest the rcc

 

[Cruciform]

Let's see, I laid out a question and stated two potential outcomes based on your answer to the question.You failed to answer the question as you provided nothing indicating that Jesus taught the Marian doctrines or the selling of ndulgences.The conclusion, supported by Scrioture, is that Jesus never taught those things.You can claim any fallacy that you want but everybody reading this thread sees the same thing, you cannot defend your doctrines based on Christ's actual teachings.

You've already been answered.

 

[Cruciform]

The bible is the only thing that survived and that's sola scriptura.

"Survived" what, exactly? You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you.

 

[brewmama]

"Survived" what, exactly? You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you.

No clue of history or where the Bible came from either.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You've already been answered.

Oh, I am well aware that you have done the very best that you can for the RCC. At this point I am just making sure that other readers on this thread understand what your very best is; RCC propaganda and misdirection and evasion.

 

[TulipBee]

No clue of history or where the Bible came from either.

Inspired ones came from God

 

[TulipBee]

"Survived" what, exactly? You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you.

Inspired ones survived. Others are just books. You think you know what you're talking about

 

[Cruciform]

Inspired ones came from God

...and how exactly do you authoritatively know which particular ones those are? :think:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...and how exactly do you authoritatively know which particular ones those are?

The question of the Romanist presupposes God’s need for a human agency to declare infallibly a list of canonical books. Rome creates this for very overt purposes, to insist that only an “infallible” church can infallibly pronounce such a canonical list. It is a made up and self-serving apologetic that hopes their assertion that Protestants have no answer for this "dilemma". Don't take the Romanist's bait playing this shell game. Rome would have us believe God is not able to make Himself known sufficiently.

The objective authority inherent of Scripture itself, grounded in the reality of Divine authorship, coupled with the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit ratifying the truth of the text, implies believers themselves recognize the divine authority of Scripture. God alone is a fit witness of Himself in His Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of God the Holy Spirit.

God needs no dependency on His creatures to identify infallibly His own authoritative word (1 John 5:9). The God-breathed word of God is therefore self-authenticating, needing no human sanction. In direct opposition to 1 John 5:9, Rome would presume its witness is greater than God's.

The Romanist "apologist" asks for us to show him the table of contents of the Bible, ready and waiting to strike with some nonsense that Rome declared the canon and without her we would all be bereft. I am reminded of Genesis 3:1 when Romanists attempt this ploy, for theirs is but a variation of the devil's own method to subvert what God has said.

Rather, to Rome's self-serving tactic, we respond that the authority of Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, does not depend upon the testimony of any man, or church, but entirely upon God (Who is truth itself) the Author of Scripture. Therefore Scripture is to be received, because it is the Word of God (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13).

AMR

 

[geralduk]

...and how exactly do you authoritatively know which particular ones those are? :think:

Know ye not the scriptures?
That if the Spirit of truth abides in you by Him ye will know the spirit of error"
The Roman churches grave errors of doctrines and practices were proved at the reformation beyond all reasonable doubt .Both by biblical argument as also by her murderous reaction to the truth and those that preached it.
Sadly not only has the roman church not repented of her errors, immaculate conceptions and her cunningly devised fables .But has since declared she is infallible in them.
Thus as a church a body she can neither be corrected or will changer her ways for she is by her own perception infallible despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary .
The only thing she can do is repent both of her pride and her errors. if she does not she will come under the full judgment of God not only for her errors ,sins and corruption but also for the untold millions she has deceived by them.

in Christ
gerald