Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes, from the Catholic point of view, the “Great Heresy of Protestantism” is the belief of sola scriptura and sola fide.

I’m not sure why you say that “the belief in both sola scriptura and sola fide” have been around since the very beginning? I’m not aware of any major (or minor) sects believing in both sola scriptura and sola fide until the Protestant Reformation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

Lots of Christians did before the reformation. Would you like me to post some quotes?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

That’s not possible. That bible that you rest your faith solely upon didn’t even exist until the 4th century when the Catholic Church sorted and settled those writings as canon.
Jesus Christ did not found a “biblical” church. He founded an Apostolic Church.

Sola Scriptura does have any bearing on what is in the canon. Sola Scriptura could be practiced on Mt Sinai when scripture consisted of a couple stone tablets, AD 33, or today. Sola Scriptura is simply norming doctrine by scripture.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

And now comes the interesting part of the thread where we ask that famous question:

Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

Near as I can tell, Scripture does not say Scripture alone. There is a superiority about Scripture - “All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching” - but no one would say it operates* alone*. And having spoken with some of your Lutheran brethen, even they do not really believe in sola scriptura, strictly speaking, because they weigh their beliefs against the Church Fathers as well!

Now, if you wanna say that, too, is “sola scriptura”, you may want to talk with the Calvinists about that, because John Calvin had no respect for the Church Fathers. And you bet modern Calvinists and other Protestants believe, often in contrast to the Fathers, that they, too, follow “sola scriptura”.

Now we’re both smarter than to say that what Calvinists believe, particularly about free will among other things, is Scriptural. But without the Church Fathers and common sense to back you up - it sure doesn’t back them up! - you’re kinda up the creek without a paddle, my friend.

So you, too, my friend, being a good, orthodox Lutheran, subscribe to Tradition, just like us Catholics. You do not adhere to “sola scriptura”. And so, therefore, you’re not really much of a Protestant, now are you? (Or at least some of the other Lutherans like steido are not.)

You have a severe misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. It’s not adherence to scripture to the exclusion of tradition of fathers or whatever. Its norming all doctrine by scripture, it being the highest authority.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Still curious what happened to the Waldensians, Hussites and people who didn’t recant of beliefs on the Eucharist that Barengar of Tours had?

Papal Bull against Luther #33?

The Waldensians are still around. They hooked up with the Methodists in the long run, but you can still go to a Waldensian church. If it please you.

The Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards all earned themselves the matches and kindling of the papacy.

The Lollards simply joined in with the English reformation when it started.

The Hussites still exist in The Czech Republic.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Whatever happened to them?

The Waldensians are still around. You can even go to a Waldensian church, especially in Italy. There are Waldensians who hooked up with the Methodists, and Waldensians that hooked up with the Presbyterians. I never been to one myself, but I am interested in checking one out should the opportunity present itself.

The Hussites still exist too, but mostly in the Czech Republic and parts surrounding.

 

[dronald]

The Waldensians are still around. They hooked up with the Methodists in the long run, but you can still go to a Waldensian church. If it please you.

The Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards all earned themselves the matches and kindling of the papacy.

The Lollards simply joined in with the English reformation when it started.

The Hussites still exist in The Czech Republic.

So it would seem the OP has his answer. These fellas were hunted down and killed before Luther.

 

[phil19034]

Lots of Christians did before the reformation. Would you like me to post some quotes?

Yes please.

 

[phil19034]

First, Sola Scriptura is not heresy. That doctrine merely claims that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and sanctification. It does not throw out the baby with the bathwater (i.e. Church Fathers, local Church Leaders, or what can be gained from seeking counsel from other Believers) that wouldn’t make sense in practice.

Second, Sola Scriptura sprang to life from within the Church. Priests and Church Scholars began to find increasing conflict between the practices of Catholic leaders and the teachings of Scripture. They tried to reform within the Church but met with resistance (sometimes losing their lives for their beliefs) and began to be understandably cautious, though perhaps over cautious, about who they would accept as spiritual leaders after the ordeal.

Third, Sola Fide has as strong a Scriptural basis as does working out your salvation. Reformers believed that with true faith came the desire to do the works of God. If they had not, we would not have the many schools, hospitals, and charities that sprang up under Protestant auspices.

I wouldn’t have thought Catholics would see these as Protestant heresies from what I’ve seen on EWTN. They may disagree with what they see as abuses within these doctrines if taken to extreme but truly a heresy? On par with what Athanasius fought against?

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are heresy from the view of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East. (However, the Orthodox will not officially call it heresy because they need a Council to call it heresy, and they can’t call one without the Bishop of Rome).

Sola Scriptura is heresy because it places Sacred Scripture as a higher authority than Sacred Tradition. Catholics believe they are equal weight, as Sacred Scriputre came from Sacred Tradition. Plus, there are other truths that are not recorded or explained in Scripture.

The Orthodox view is much closer to the Catholics, than to the Protestants. (If I’m not mistaken, the Eastern Orthodox believe that Sacred Tradition is actually a higher authority than Scripture, since Scripture came from Sacred Tradition.).

Sola Fide is heresy because salvation is granted via Grace, not Faith. Faith in Christ does not guarantee a grave sinner salvation. Only Grace does.

 

[guanophore]

It doesn’t.

If you are defining a “Protestant” as someone who believes in sola Scriptura and sola fide/gratia. Then we have been around since the very beginning.

Perhaps, but as has been pointed out, persons who embraced them were considered heretics, prior to the Reformation. Actually, during the Reformation also, but now persons who embrace such ideas are considered our separated brethren, rather than heretics.

 

[guanophore]

I believe the Apostles were the first. They wrote what they believed. They didn’t believe anything outside of the letters they wrote, which once compiled, became the Bible.

I don’t know where you learned this falsehood, but now would be a good time to part with it. Jesus explained everything to His Apostles, and no attempt was ever made to compile it all into the Scriptures. You have embraced a modern myth that was invented to support the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

If they believed what they wrote, did they believe anything outside of it? If so, why wasn’t it recorded?

They did believe all they wrote, as well as all that was taught to them that was not written. God prepared a people for Himself that could preserve Sacred Tradition (the teaching of God passed through oral tradition) for millennia before He came. He did not write anything, but committed it all to His Apostles experientially.

I believe the Apostles were the fist ‘Bible only’ believers!

Certainly every human being has the right to choose what they believe, even if it is not consistent with the facts.

I just read an article saying that many Quakers and Mennonites still believe the earth is flat.

Why because that which was written was what they believed.

Yes, of course they believed what was written, and they believed all that came from Christ that was not written, also. This they gave to the Church in the once for all divine deposit of faith.

 

[guanophore]

First, Sola Scriptura is not heresy.

It is heresy, but then, there are so many different definitions of it now that one can never be sure when belief in it is claimed that they are describing the same belief.

I also understand that more recently, the idea has been forwarded that it is not a “doctrine” at all, but a “practice”.

The Catholic position on SS as a heresy was a response to the definition given by Martin Luther (1483–1546) in which he recognized the highest religious authority in the word of God as witnessed to in scripture. In this sense, the principle can be aligned with the Second Vatican Council’s (1960–65) statement that “the teaching office of the church is not above the Word of God but serves it” (DV 10). Luther’s principle is unacceptable (and indeed unworkable) if it is taken to exclude the interpretative and actualizing role of tradition. This is because Catholics believe that Jesus established His Church and gave her authority before any word of the NT was ever written.

 That doctrine merely claims that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and sanctification.

Actually this definition is not consistent with any of the definitions of SS I have ever seen. What you seem to be describing is the sufficiency of scripture. That being the case you are right, it is not considered a heresy.

It does not throw out the baby with the bathwater (i.e. Church Fathers, local Church Leaders, or what can be gained from seeking counsel from other Believers) that wouldn’t make sense in practice.

The Angilcan and Lutheran understandings of SS do not do this, but most modern evangelical ecclesial communities do.

Second, Sola Scriptura sprang to life from within the Church. Priests and Church Scholars began to find increasing conflict between the practices of Catholic leaders and the teachings of Scripture. They tried to reform within the Church but met with resistance (sometimes losing their lives for their beliefs) and began to be understandably cautious, though perhaps over cautious, about who they would accept as spiritual leaders after the ordeal.

I am not sure what event(s) you are describing here, but without a doubt 1) heresies have always existed over and against the teaching of the Apostles 2) There have always been wolves among the sheep and corruption in leadership 3) Men are always in need of reform, though the doctrine of Christ is not.

Third, Sola Fide has as strong a Scriptural basis as does working out your salvation. Reformers believed that with true faith came the desire to do the works of God. If they had not, we would not have the many schools, hospitals, and charities that sprang up under Protestant auspices.

Yes, there is no question that saving faith is faith that works, however, the conception of how human beings initially come into right relationship with God is what is at issue here. The concept of Sola Fide touches the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of original sin, and the nature of salvation. This is why it has been such a controversy.

I wouldn’t have thought Catholics would see these as Protestant heresies from what I’ve seen on EWTN. They may disagree with what they see as abuses within these doctrines if taken to extreme but truly a heresy? On par with what Athanasius fought against?

There is a great deal of shared theology embedded in the concepts. They are certainly more obviously heresies in their extreme forms, for example, it is much easier to see why sola fide is heretical when having this discussion with a monergistic Calvanist.

 

[guanophore]

You have a severe misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. It’s not adherence to scripture to the exclusion of tradition of fathers or whatever. Its norming all doctrine by scripture, it being the highest authority.

It does not mean this to you, ,but there are many who do interpret it this way. If it is not in the bible, it is “unbiblical”.

I don’t think this was Luther’s understanding, or that of those who preceded him such as the Waldensians and Hussites, but it is very popular now in evangelical/fundamentalist circles.

 

[guanophore]

So it would seem the OP has his answer. These fellas were hunted down and killed before Luther.

When the Holy Roman Church became conflated with the Holy Roman Empire, Catholicism was the State religion. Persons who defied the Church were considered treasonous, since the secular leaders were installed by the Church in part to enforce the faith of Holy Mother Church.

Defiance of Church authority was therefore considered a rebellion against secular authority (instituted by God). There were various types of interventions, including inquisition, coercion to convert or repent, exhile, and death. These were the same methods used by secular rulers on political enemies.

 

[JonNC]

No one could believe in sola scriptura before the printing press, because the average person could not get his or her own copy of the Bible before the printing press and most could not read back then either. The only reason protestantism was able to flourish after Martin Luther was because of the printing press invention which allowed the mass production of the Bible which allowed people to believe the Bible was all they needed. How could people be protestant in earlier times and believe in sola scriptura when most could not get their own copy of the Bible to read for their self and most could not read? The genuine ones had no choice but to be a part of the Catholic church. But like someone said, heresies have been around since before Jesus died. People have to be able to have their own copy of the Bible and be able to read it in order to believe in sola scriptura which most people didn’t have till after the printing press and after Martin Luther. That’s why all Christians up till Martin Luther, needed the church to learn the word of God, they could not get their own Bible to read.

This is a misunderstanding of the Lutheran practice of sola scriptura. From the Lutheran perspective, even as far back as the second generation reformers and earlier, SS has been understood as a practice of the Church to hold doctrine and teachings accountable to scripture as the final norm. Proliferation of the Bible is not necessary for this. As the quote from Martin Chemnitz in my signature states,* “This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’ "*
Lutherans still need and rely on the Church (in the Lutheran tradition) for interpretation of the scriptures, and the setting of doctrine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And now comes the interesting part of the thread where we ask that famous question:

Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

Near as I can tell, Scripture does not say Scripture alone. There is a superiority about Scripture - “All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching” - but no one would say it operates* alone*. And having spoken with some of your Lutheran brethen, even they do not really believe in sola scriptura, strictly speaking, because they weigh their beliefs against the Church Fathers as well!

Now, if you wanna say that, too, is “sola scriptura”, you may want to talk with the Calvinists about that, because John Calvin had no respect for the Church Fathers. And you bet modern Calvinists and other Protestants believe, often in contrast to the Fathers, that they, too, follow “sola scriptura”.

Now we’re both smarter than to say that what Calvinists believe, particularly about free will among other things, is Scriptural. But without the Church Fathers and common sense to back you up - it sure doesn’t back them up! - you’re kinda up the creek without a paddle, my friend.

So you, too, my friend, being a good, orthodox Lutheran, subscribe to Tradition, just like us Catholics. You do not adhere to “sola scriptura”. And so, therefore, you’re not really much of a Protestant, now are you? (Or at least some of the other Lutherans like steido are not.)

And yet the Lutheran tradition has regularly referred to what our Church practices as “sola scriptura”. that said, I appreciate you recognizing how we practice it. Thank you.

Jon

 

[dronald]

This is a misunderstanding of the Lutheran practice of sola scriptura. From the Lutheran perspective, even as far back as the second generation reformers and earlier, SS has been understood as a practice of the Church to hold doctrine and teachings accountable to scripture as the final norm. Proliferation of the Bible is not necessary for this. As the quote from Martin Chemnitz in my signature states,* “This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’ "*
Lutherans still need and rely on the Church (in the Lutheran tradition) for interpretation of the scriptures, and the setting of doctrine.

Jon

Do you happen to have a game you play with yourself for every time you have to clarify this so it doesn’t get boring? Or do you copy/paste? Haha.

You should reward yourself each time or keep track!

 

[JonNC]

That’s not possible. That bible that you rest your faith solely upon didn’t even exist until the 4th century when the Catholic Church sorted and settled those writings as canon.
Jesus Christ did not found a “biblical” church. He founded an Apostolic Church.

And yet, Christ Himself says, “It is written.” The OT, and even the later Deuterocaonnical books, were already present, and by the end of the first century, we can assume that much of the NT was already written (leaving aside questions about James, Hebrews, etc.).
It is a strawman to present the Bible as not existing until the 4th century, but if this is the approach we should take, then it must be said that, for a Catholic, the Bible did not exist in its final form until the Council of Trent, as the 4th century local synods were not ecumenical councils, binding on the whole Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Do you happen to have a game you play with yourself for every time you have to clarify this so it doesn’t get boring? Or do you copy/paste? Haha.

You should reward yourself each time or keep track!

GKC at one point recommended I save posts to be used at a later time. He seems to have the same need concerning Anglican orders and Apostolicae Curae.

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Perhaps, but as has been pointed out, persons who embraced them were considered heretics, prior to the Reformation. Actually, during the Reformation also, but now persons who embrace such ideas are considered our separated brethren, rather than heretics.

That’s very generous of the RC.

Why the change though?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes please.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202):

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386):

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”

Basil the Great (c. 329-379):

“They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”