The Father Of Roman Catholicism, Emperor Constatine The Great

[Athanasius377]

Luther invented Sola scriptura. He needed to because once he cut himself off from the church and tradition, all that was left was the scriptures. You can’t even discern the canon from Sola Scriptura. It’s extremely flawed and un historical .

That is false. First, we need to define Sola Scriptura. It means that the scriptures alone are god-breathed (θεόπνευστος) and are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. As opposed to tradition which is not god-breathed nor infallible.

Second, Luther never wanted to leave the catholic church he wanted to reform it back to its apostolic origins. It was Rome the excommunicated Luther, not Luther leaving the church.

Thirdly, if "table of contents" is your argument know then it is perhaps the weakest argument going. Rome didn't dogmatically define the canon of scripture until 1546 at the council of Trent. The earlier councils (Rome, Carthage, Hippo etc) are regional councils and do not carry ecumenical authority according to Rome on any other subject. Yet the church was able to discern what books were inspired (God-Breathed) and which ones were not long before the fifth century councils and most certainly Trent.

 

[GodMyFortress]

That is false. First, we need to define Sola Scriptura. It means that the scriptures alone are god-breathed (θεόπνευστος) and are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. As opposed to tradition which is not god-breathed nor infallible.

Second, Luther never wanted to leave the catholic church he wanted to reform it back to its apostolic origins. It was Rome the excommunicated Luther, not Luther leaving the church.

Thirdly, if "table of contents" is your argument know then it is perhaps the weakest argument going. Rome didn't dogmatically define the canon of scripture until 1546 at the council of Trent. The earlier councils (Rome, Carthage, Hippo etc) are regional councils and do not carry ecumenical authority according to Rome on any other subject. Yet the church was able to discern what books were inspired (God-Breathed) and which ones were not long before the fifth century councils and most certainly Trent.

Luther defined Sola Scriptura! You say Sola Scriptura didn’t get formulated by Luther, that is absolutely false. He was excommunicated because he was a heretic.

 

[Athanasius377]

The Catholic Bishop of Hippo never believed in Sola Fide. You can’t believe certain things and also believe Sola Fide, there are incompible beliefs.

He believed baptism regenerated the believer and you needed penance (referring to confession) after you fall into sin to be saved

“In three ways are sins remitted in the Church; by baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins except to the baptized. The very sins that he remits first, he remits only to the baptized [Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 16 (c. A.D. 395)].”


He believed there was no salvation outside the Church:
“We believe also in the holy Church, assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. As a result neither do the heretics belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor’s sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by him who has reconciled us to himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life And until we reach the perfection of this new life, we cannot be without sins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sins may be [Faith and the Creed 10:21 (A.D. 393)].”

“Just as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to profit from what was not profitable before, but was already in him [On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4:6 (A.D. 400)].”

Augustine is not using the "catholic" the same way you are. You are attempting to read back into history and specifically Augustine the concept of the Modern Roman church. This is anachronistic. Augustine means the church universal teaching apostolic doctrine. The catholic church he is referring to does not have a pope, a curia, a magisterium.

 

[Athanasius377]

You say Sola Scriptura didn’t get formulated by Luther, that is absolutely false.

I was referring to the part of your post about Luther leaving the church. Luther merely coined the term but sola scriptura has its genesis in scripture itself and in the writing of the early church fathers. And no, Luther was no heretic. Luther was correct and Rome knew it. Recall that Rome had a reformation of her own in the counter-reformation.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Augustine is not using the "catholic" the same way you are. You are attempting to read back into history and specifically Augustine the concept of the Modern Roman church. This is anachronistic. Augustine means the church universal teaching apostolic doctrine. The catholic church he is referring to does not have a pope, a curia, a magisterium.

That is so ridiculous. He was the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. That was the Church he belonged to. He wrote this gem too:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Luther defined Sola Scriptura! You say Sola Scriptura didn’t get formulated by Luther, that is absolutely false. He was excommunicated because he was a heretic.

He was judged falsely as a heretic by the actual heretic that we call Pope, Leo the 10th.

 

[Athanasius377]

That is so ridiculous. He was the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. That was the Church he belonged to. He wrote this gem too:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

You are confusing the catholic church with the modern concept that Rome uses. Augustine would not recognize the modern church in Rome calling itself catholic.

 

[GodMyFortress]

I was referring to the part of your post about Luther leaving the church. Luther merely coined the term but sola scriptura has its genesis in scripture itself and in the writing of the early church fathers. And no, Luther was no heretic. Luther was correct and Rome knew it. Recall that Rome had a reformation of her own in the counter-reformation.

Luther was a heretic. His heresies were explained to him in the Bull. He took it even further creating a new understanding of Christianity that had never been believed by historical Christians.

 

[GodMyFortress]

He was judged falsely as a heretic by the actual heretic that we call Pope, Leo the 10th.

Leo was no saint, but he wasn’t wrong with regard to Luthers heresies.

 

[Athanasius377]

That is so ridiculous. He was the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. That was the Church he belonged to. He wrote this gem too:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

Yes he did. And he was writing against Mani the heretic. A little context would be helpful:

Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

The full text can be found here.

Again he's not using the work catholic like you are.

 

[GodMyFortress]

You are confusing the catholic church with the modern concept that Rome uses. Augustine would not recognize the modern church in Rome calling itself catholic.

No I’m not, he believes the things I believe. You would disagree with nearly everything he believed if you read what he wrote. He ask saints to pray for him, believed in baptism regeneration, confession to priests, the authority of the Pope, and on and on.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Yes he did. And he was writing against Mani the heretic. A little context would be helpful:

Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

The full text can be found here.

Again he's not using the work catholic like you are.

Can a Christian believe in Sola Scriptura and believe that. I’ve never read one biblical scholar that wouldn’t find that untenable.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Leo was no saint, but he wasn’t wrong with regard to Luthers heresies.

The best description of Leo, is found in Jeremiah chapters 23-25. A wolf that devours the flock. False in every regard. False teacher and false prophet.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

The fact that you defend a pervier of a false gospel, and a fleecer of the flock, lets me know who you are.

 

[Truth7t7]

This is a fantasy. There is zero, i mean absolutely zero evidence that Baptist succession is true.

Are you Roman Catholic by chance?

 

[GodMyFortress]

The best description of Leo, is found in Jeremiah chapters 23-25. A wolf that devours the flock. False in every regard. False teacher and false prophet.

I’m no fan of him. He was a sinful man and was a stain on the Church at that time. He did not do enough to make sure people weren’t being lied to about indulgences.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I’m no fan of him. He was a sinful man and was a stain on the Church at that time. He did not do enough to make sure people weren’t being lied to about indulgences.

He was behind the indulgences. Propagating the abuse of peasants.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

This is a fantasy. There is zero, i mean absolutely zero evidence that Baptist succession is true.

Their claim comes through the anabaptists. The founder of the baptist church was an unfellowshipped anabaptist.

 

[GodMyFortress]

He was behind the indulgences. Propagating the abuse of peasants.

The idea of absolving temporal punishment resulting from sins already forgiven by God was around long before Leo. He was not a good leader, he was most certainly a bad Pope.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

The idea of absolving temporal punishment resulting from sins already forgiven by God was around long before Leo. He was not a good leader, he was most certainly a bad Pope.

Yes God gave authority to his disciples to forgive sins. However as we see in the case of Simon the sorcerer that the propositions of selling the gifts of the Holy was abhorrent. So go on and attempt to soft sell the absolute evil of pope Leo, and you become the propagandaist of Satan.