Surviving Roman Catholic Heresies in Protestantism

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The Way of the Cross (Via Dolorosa) was burned in the minds and hearts of eye witnesses, it's authenticity was preserved long before it was written down, and it is impossible to have each detail written down. There is nothing in Scripture that says all the authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture. That is a Protestant invention.

From the horse's teeth,
<<the authentic beliefs and practices explicitly found in Scripture .. is a Protestant invention>>;

but non-Scripture <<impossible to have each detail written down>> is <<authenticity preserved long before it was written down>>

-- BEAUTIFUL, SUPERB!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn Just now ·
"Non-Scripture impossible to have each detail written down is authenticity preserved long before it was written down ..

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn 1 min ·
.. authentic beliefs and practices explicitly found in Scripture is a Protestant invention." RC

 

[epostle]

From the horse's teeth,
<<the authentic beliefs and practices explicitly found in Scripture .. is a Protestant invention>>;

but non-Scripture <<impossible to have each detail written down>> is <<authenticity preserved long before it was written down>>

-- BEAUTIFUL, SUPERB!

That's not what I said. Using "<<" is not a license to misrepresent me. I didn't say "non-Scripture". That's your man made tradition, dismissing the validity of the spoken Word. There is no verse that states that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be trustworthy or valid. It's not suggested or inferred. It isn't found anywhere. Until you can find one, you're just blowing forum flatus, like your last 2 posts.

 

[Windmillcharge]

The Way of the Cross (Via Dolorosa) was burned in the minds and hearts of eye witnesses, it's authenticity was preserved long before it was written down, and it is impossible to have each detail written down. There is nothing in Scripture that says all the authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture. That is a Protestant invention.

But this squable is about what the bible says.
If Gerhard was saying this is what the traditions say I would not be quibbling.

 

[Willie T]

Traditions??? I have a 4-page excerpt from Calvin showing the many, many times The Catholic Church totally ignored or overrode the traditions the Ancient Church Fathers laid down. It is really a hoot! They swear their church is based on Traditions, and then just blow them off, right and left.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

That's not what I said. Using "<<" is not a license to misrepresent me. I didn't say "non-Scripture". That's your man made tradition, dismissing the validity of the spoken Word. There is no verse that states that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be trustworthy or valid. It's not suggested or inferred. It isn't found anywhere. Until you can find one, you're just blowing forum flatus, like your last 2 posts.

That is 100% what YOU wrote. YOU said: <<authenticity .. preserved long before it was written down>>. Thanks.
Then again, now: <<dismissing the validity of the spoken Word>>-- the spoken word is non-Scripture. The spoken word not written down is not <<valid>> because it is not The Written Down Word of God.

So your WHOLE spinning is moot: <<There is no verse that states that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be trustworthy or valid>>.

And therefore it is entirely up to you to find that which is <<not suggested or inferred>> nor <<found anywhere>> ---IN SCRIPTURE!

And finally therefore, <<Until you can find one, you're just blowing forum flatus>>, like with ALL your posts.

 

[Heavenbound]

Surviving Roman Catholic Heresies in Protestantism

Free-will
Sunday
Blood
Cross

...for now.

I'll begin with the 'Cross'--

Jesus' cross never stood empty; Catholics' idolatrous image does.


Jesus never stumbled, but, went boldly! Do you believe Scripture?


Jesus did not carry the cross to Golgotha; He walked Triumphator!

Priests created a slew of victims

the way the Vatican mis- treated them tells us all we need to know

 

[epostle]

Priests created a slew of victims

A meaningless flaming zinger.

the way the Vatican mis- treated them tells us all we need to know

The atrocities committed by the "reformers" tells us all we need to know. It's a pointless discussion. And what does this have to do with "There is no verse that states that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be trustworthy or valid."? Nothing. You, nor GerhardEbersoehn can't defend your man made tradition so you resort to derailing tactics.

 

[epostle]

That is 100% what YOU wrote. YOU said: <<authenticity .. preserved long before it was written down>>. Thanks.
Then again, now: <<dismissing the validity of the spoken Word>>-- the spoken word is non-Scripture. The spoken word not written down is not <<valid>> because it is not The Written Down Word of God.

But you can't prove that with Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture is "Word of God" confined to the written word alone. "Word of God" appears 50 times on average in Scripture. Pick any translation you like.
I haven't been able to find one usage where it means "the written word alone". Do a word search in any Bible search engine. I'll even provide a link to biblegateway because you are too scared to do your own homework.

So your WHOLE spinning is moot: <<There is no verse that states that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be trustworthy or valid>>.

And therefore it is entirely up to you to find that which is <<not suggested or inferred>> nor <<found anywhere>> ---IN SCRIPTURE!

I am not the one that blindly sticks to a false man made tradition that is not in Scripture. The onus yours to defend, not mine.

You don't speak for all Protestants, very few in fact. Your thread title is defamatory, divisive and insulting. You get away with violating the rules because everybody knows this forum has a double standard when it comes to stupid thread titles that offends Catholics.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Where there are sins there are also divisions, schisms, heresies and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

False. What you actually say, is, Where there is the True Believers outside the RCC, there is sin and heresy. But though their numbers indicate that the Catholics should rule the world, God in Revelation 20:4 declared that the saints whom the RC “FOR THE WORD OF GOD beheaded" to near extinction, instead shall reign with Christ until the Beast and False Prophet Roman Catholic church with death and hell and satan shall be cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Mungo]

Traditions??? I have a 4-page excerpt from Calvin showing the many, many times The Catholic Church totally ignored or overrode the traditions the Ancient Church Fathers laid down. It is really a hoot! They swear their church is based on Traditions, and then just blow them off, right and left.

Examples?
i would be interested to see some.

 

[Willie T]

Examples?
i would be interested to see some.

Catholics Ignore “The Ancient Fathers”
From John Calvin’s
The Institutes of Christian Religion

It is a calumny (The making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander WTE ) to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours. 15 While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which are well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said their only care has been to gather dross among gold. Then, with dishonest clamor, they assail us as enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages. Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavored to remember…….

14 Instead of “thought they were cured,” the Ed. 1536 says simply, “they were cured” (curarentur).
15 “Ut modestissime etiam loquar,” not in the Ed. 1536.

……. (1Cor. 3:21-23; see also Augustin. Ep. 28), that all things are ours, to serve, not lord it over us, but that we axe Christ’s only, and must obey him in all things without exception. He who does not draw this distinction will not have any fixed principles in religion; for those holy men were ignorant of many things, are often opposed to each other, and are sometimes at variance with themselves.

It is not without cause (remark our opponents) we are thus warned by Solomon, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). But the same rule applies not to the measuring of fields and the obedience of faith. The rule applicable to the latter is, “Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house” (Ps. 45:10). But if they are so fond of allegory, why do they not understand the apostles, rather than any other class of Fathers, to be meant by those whose landmarks it is unlawful to remove? This is the interpretation of Jerome, whose words they have quoted in their canons. But as regards those to whom they apply the passage, if they wish the landmarks to be fixed, why do they, whenever it suits their purpose, so freely overleap them?

Among the Fathers there were two, the one of whom said, 16 “Our God neither eats nor drinks, and therefore has no need of chalices and salvers;” and the other 17 “Sacred rites do not require gold, and things which are not bought with gold, please not by gold.” They step beyond the boundary, therefore, when in sacred matters they are so much delighted with gold, driver, ivory, marble, gems, and silks, that unless everything is overlaid with costly show, or rather insane luxury 18 , they think God is not duly worshipped.

It was a Father who said, 19 “He ate flesh freely on the day on which others abstained from it, because he was a Christian.” They overleap the boundaries, therefore, when they doom to perdition every soul that, during Lent, shall have tasted flesh.

There were two Fathers, the one of whom said, 20 “A monk not laboring with his own hands is no better than a violent man and a robber;” and the other, 21 “Monks, however assiduous they may be in study, meditation, and prayer, must not live by others.” This boundary, too, they transgressed, when they placed lazy gormandizing monks in dens and stews, to gorge themselves on other men’s substance.

It was a Father who said, 22 “It is a horrid abomination to see in Christian temples a painted image either of Christ or of any saint.” Nor was this pronounced by the voice era……..

16 i. Acatius in lib. 11 cap 16, F. Triport. Hist.
17 ii. Ambr. lib. 2. De Officiis, cap. 28.
18 Instead of the words here translated — viz. “exquisito splendore vel potius insanc luxu,” the Ed. 1536 has only the word “luxu.”
19 iii. Spiridion. Trip. Hist. lib. 1 cap. 10.
20 iv. Trip. Hist. lib. 8 cap 1
21 August. De Opere Monach cap 7
22 vi. Epiph. Epist. ab Hieron. versa

……. single individual; but an Ecclesiastical Council also decreed, 23 “Let naught that is worshipped be depicted on walls.” 24 Very far are they from keeping within these boundaries when they leave not a corner without images.

 

[Willie T]

…..continued...…….
Another Father counselled, 25 “That after performing the office of humanity to the dead in their burial, we should leave them at rest.” These limits they burst through when they keep up a perpetual anxiety about the dead.

It is a Father who testifies, 26 “That the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus Christ.” This boundary they pass in pretending that, as soon as the words of our Lord are pronounced, the substance of bread and wine ceases, and is transubstantiated into body and blood.

They were Fathers, who, as they exhibited only one Eucharist to the whole Church, 27 and kept back from it the profane and flagitious; so they, in the severest terms, censured all those 28 who, being present, did not communicate How far have they removed these landmarks, in filling not churches only, but also private houses, with their masses, admitting all and sundry to be present, each the more willingly the more largely he pays, however wicked and impure he may be, — not inviting anyone to faith in Christ and faithful communion in the sacraments, but rather vending their own work for the grace and merits of Christ! 29

There were two Fathers, the one of whom decided that those were to be excluded altogether from partaking of Christ’s sacred supper, 30 who, contented with communion in one kind, abstained from the other; while the other Father strongly contends 31 that the blood of the Lord ought not to be denied to the Christian people, who, in confessing him, are enjoined to shed their own blood. These landmarks, also, they removed, when, by an unalterable law, they ordered the very thing which the former Father punished with excommunication, and the latter condemned for a valid reason.

23 vii. Conc. Elibert. can. 36.
24 No part of this sentence is in Ed. 1536.
25 viii. Ambr de Abraha. lib. i c. 7
26 ix. Gelasius Papa in Conc. Rom.
27 x. Chrys. in 1. cap. Ephes.
28 xi. Calixt. Papa, De Consecrat. dist. 2
29 Instead of the whole passage, beginning at bottom of p. 11, “It is a Father who testifies,”, etc., the Ed. 1536 has the following sentence: “Ex patribus erat qui negavit in sacramento coenae esse verum corpus sed mysterium duntaxat corporis; sic enim ad verbum loquitur.” On the margin, reference is made to the author of an unfinished Tract on Matthew, forming the 11th Homil. among the works of Chrysostom.
30 xii. Gelas. can. Comperimus, De Consec. dist. 2.
31 xiii. Cypr. Epist. 2, lib. 1. De Lapsis.

It was a Father who pronounced it rashness, 32 in an obscure question, to decide in either way without clear and evident authority from Scripture. They forgot this landmark when they enacted so many constitutions, so many canons, and so many dogmatical decisions, without sanction from the word of God.

It was a Father who reproved Montanus, among other heresies, 33 for being the first who imposed laws of fasting. They have gone far beyond this landmark also in enjoining fasting under the strictest laws.

It was a Father who denied 34 that the ministers of the Church should be interdicted from marrying, and pronounced married life to be a state of chastity; and there were other Fathers who assented to his decision. These boundaries they overstepped in rigidly binding their priests to celibacy.

It was a Father who thought 35 that Christ only should be listened to, from its being said, “hear him;” and that regard is due not to what others before us have said or done, but only to what Christ, the head of all, has commanded. This landmark they neither observe themselves nor allow to be observed by others, while they subject themselves and others to any master whatever, rather than Christ.

There is a Father who contends 36 that the Church ought not to prefer herself to Christ, who always judges truly, whereas ecclesiastical judges, who are but men, are generally deceived. Having burst through this barrier also, they hesitate not to suspend the whole authority of Scripture on the judgment of the Church. 37

All the Fathers with one heart execrated, and with one mouth protested 38 against, contaminating the word of God with the subtleties sophists, and involving it in the brawls of dialecticians. Do they keep within these limits when the sole occupation of their lives is to entwine and entangle the simplicity of Scripture with endless disputes, and worse than sophistical jargon? So much so, that were the Fathers to rise from their graves, and listen to the brawling art which bears the name of speculative theology, there is nothing they would suppose it less to be than a discussion of a religious nature.

But my discourse would far exceed its just limits were I to show, in detail, how petulantly those men shake off the yoke of the Fathers, while they wish to be thought their most…….

32 xiv. August. lib. 2 De Peccat. Mer. cap. uit.
33 xv. Apollon. De quo Eccles. Hist. lib 5 cap. 12.
34 xvi. Paphnut. Tripart. Hist. lib. 2 cap. 14.
35 xvii. Cypr. Epist. 2, lib. 2
36 xviii. Aug. cap. 2, Cont. Cresconium Grammat.
37 No part of this passage is in Ed. 1536.
38 xix. Calv. De Scholast. Doctor. Judicium. Vid. Book II. cap. 2 sec. 6; Book III. cap. 4 sec. 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 26- 29; Book III. cap. 11 sec. 14, 15; Book IV. cap. 18 sec. 1; and cap. 19 sec. 10, 11, 22, 23.

……. obedient sons. Months, nay, years would fail me; and yet so deplorable and desperate is their effrontery, that they presume to chastise us for overstepping the ancient landmarks!

 

[epostle]

False. What you actually say, is, Where there is the True Believers outside the RCC, there is sin and heresy. But though their numbers indicate that the Catholics should rule the world, God in Revelation 20:4 declared that the saints whom the RC “FOR THE WORD OF GOD beheaded" to near extinction, instead shall reign with Christ until the Beast and False Prophet Roman Catholic church with death and hell and satan shall be cast into the lake of fire.

"Word of God" in Rev. 20:4 doesn't say "written word of God alone". You refute yourself. None of the martyrs killed under Nero held to any Protestant distinctives. They were all Catholics, proven by undeniable physical archeological evidence where they were buried in the Roman Catacombs. You have no evidence of "true believers" apart from the historic institutional Church. Not even a single name. So you defend your first man made tradition by adding a second. False histories is another one of your man made traditions.

But, just as I expected, you resort to Baptist mythology because you can't support your first man made tradition.

You would have us believe that noted Christians like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprus...the list goes on...were running loose killing your mythical "true believers", at the same time writing their authoritive testimony of beliefs and practices of their times. It's illogical as it is stupid.

This leads to a third man made tradition.
A) quoting ECF snippets while ignoring everything else the same father wrote.
B) dismissing them as having no historical significance.
C) ignoring them altogether.

To recap to stay on topic, we have three man made traditions:
1) all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be valid.
2) true believers were killed by Catholics (who must have killed the first 40 of their own popes.)
3) ECF were not "true believers", and must be censored from our Christian education system.

There is nothing in Scripture or history to support these man made traditions. My position stands.

 

[epostle]

Catholics Ignore “The Ancient Fathers”
From John Calvin’s
The Institutes of Christian Religion

…..continued...…….

55 Critiques of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

55 Critiques of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List
​

 

[Willie T]

Thanks for that, *Epostle*. I honestly can't make up my mind which theology I feel is the more damaging to Christianity... Calvin or the RCC. LOL

 

[epostle]

Thanks for that, *Epostle*. I honestly can't make up my mind which theology I feel is the more damaging to Christianity... Calvin or the RCC. LOL

You're welcome *Willie T*. I can't make up my mind which man made tradition has proven to be the most damaging to Protestantism. LOL

 

[Mungo]

55 Critiques of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.

55 Critiques of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List
​

WOW! I'm glad you answered that one.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I'll stick to 'Scriptures only'. If impossible to formulate doctrine or confession or belief or rule or tradition with verbatim Scripture, I reject, dismiss and destroy such with all insult, execration, perdition, contempt and hate I can.

 

[epostle]

I'll stick to 'Scriptures only'. If impossible to formulate doctrine or confession or belief or rule or tradition with verbatim Scripture, I reject, dismiss and destroy such with all insult, execration, perdition, contempt and hate I can.

You assert what you are trying to prove. There is no Catholic "doctrine or confession or belief or rule or tradition" that CONTRADICTS Scripture. In fact, Scripture has always been the PRIMARY source, but there is nothing in Scripture that says it is the ONLY source. "profitable" does not mean "exclusive". That's a man made tradition you rigidly stick to. 40,000 conflicting denoms is clear proof of the dismal failure of "Scripture alone". Every heretic in the Patristic period thumbed their noses at the authority of the Church, and went by "Scripture Alone". You can't write a history of the Church after 95 AD based on "scripture alone", it's impossible. But you do it anyway. Sola scripturists are abysmally ignorant of church history, generally speaking. So they make up their own to fit an agenda.