Yes. That is why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone as the sole authority of Christianity has caused more division and has developed into a personal interpretation belief system.

Sola Scriptura was a product of the Reformation in the 14th century and it has been the basis for the majority of different denominations. Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Baptists, Evangelicalism, etc. over 30,000 denominations in the US alone have all emerged from this movement.

It certainly contradicts the very thing they believe in. Christ taught and prayed that believers in Him should all be as one: John 17:21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are...

Yes. That is why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone as the sole authority of Christianity has caused more division and has developed into a personal interpretation belief system.

Sola Scriptura was a product of the Reformation in the 14th century and it has been the basis for the majority of different denominations. Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Baptists, Evangelicalism, etc. over 30,000 denominations in the US alone have all emerged from this movement.

It certainly contradicts the very thing they believe in. Christ taught and prayed that believers in Him should all be as one: John 17:21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

Not all Christians believe in Sola Scriptura and those who don't have remained mostly intact for 2,000 years. These would be the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Let's look back to the beginnings of the original (Catholic) church.
At some point after the church was initially established and before the first of a series of heretical outbreaks I must assume from your remarks that you believe that the church, it's beliefs,truths and sacraments were correctly derived from the scriptures at that point.

There then came a series of religious civil wars over different heresies. Arianism,Nestorism,Monophysitism to name some of the major ones.It is important to remember that each of these did not start out as heresy. They were based on different interpretations of scripture. All were sanctioned by the church and considered acceptable (at least in their early...

Let's look back to the beginnings of the original (Catholic) church.
At some point after the church was initially established and before the first of a series of heretical outbreaks I must assume from your remarks that you believe that the church, it's beliefs,truths and sacraments were correctly derived from the scriptures at that point.

There then came a series of religious civil wars over different heresies. Arianism,Nestorism,Monophysitism to name some of the major ones.It is important to remember that each of these did not start out as heresy. They were based on different interpretations of scripture. All were sanctioned by the church and considered acceptable (at least in their early stages.) All spread and were later denounced as heresy. Some(particularly in the Eastern portion of the empire) were denounced and then re-instated, only to be denounced again.
All this in a unified Catholic church before the great schism.

My point is simply the church declaring a set of beliefs to be heretical, is not an act that is guided by scripture or by God. It is a decision made by men.
Same with the schism that split the Roman and Orthodox branches.
So even if the establishment of the church was truly inspired by the scriptures, the decisions taken later were based on personal interpretations.
This was all long before the Reformation and the development of the Sola Scriptura.

Perhaps you disagree, but how else can you explain religious beliefs that are at one point were considered acceptable by the church, then became heretical?
Were the scriptures being incorrectly interpreted before the beliefs were declared heresy-when they were controversial but not quite heretical?
And if truly following the scriptures and (in theory at least) being the earthy representation of the "true" church of God why would the church promote beliefs that they were later to declare heretical?

I must assume from your remarks that you believe that the church, it's beliefs,truths and sacraments were correctly derived from the scriptures at that point.

True, but not solely from Scriptures. Jesus entrusted His mission (Mt 28:19) to the twelve Apostles. What this mission involves is the proclamation of the teachings of Christ. Parts of it was written down by them or their immediate followers in the New Testament.

Yet one of the twelve states that, "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20:30) and " But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world its...

I must assume from your remarks that you believe that the church, it's beliefs,truths and sacraments were correctly derived from the scriptures at that point.

True, but not solely from Scriptures. Jesus entrusted His mission (Mt 28:19) to the twelve Apostles. What this mission involves is the proclamation of the teachings of Christ. Parts of it was written down by them or their immediate followers in the New Testament.

Yet one of the twelve states that, "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20:30) and " But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25).

Arianism,Nestorism,Monophysitism

All were sanctioned by the church and considered acceptable

It is also true that these early heresies developed by Scripture interpretation by certain individuals who belonged in the Catholic faith. Assuming you mean the Catholic Church, these heresies were denounced once their teaching errors were brought to light. The basic tenants of these heresies were never accepted by the Church. Some of the members and leaders were "re-instated" back to the Church after denouncing their heretical views. But the heretical teachings were never incorporated into the teachings of the Church.

My point is simply the church declaring a set of beliefs to be heretical, is not an act that is guided by scripture or by God. It is a decision made by men.

True, partially. The Revelation of God is not solely based on Scripture. As a matter of fact the fullness and perfect Revelation of God is a person, Jesus Christ. I see you recognize the errors in personal interpretation of Scripture and if all we have is Scripture then which denomination is right? Is it based on decisions made by men? But how are they right?

Efrain, you make some excellent points. Forgive me if I appear to me nitpicking but sometimes the small distinctions can make a big difference.

these heresies were denounced once their teaching errors were brought
to light. The basic tenants of these heresies were never accepted by
the Church.

The heresies were not immediately denounced as such when the teaching errors were brought to light. Certainly in the case of Arianism and Nestorism the teachings were coming from highly popular and powerful church figures. I would argue that after the teaching errors were "brought to light" but before they were condemned there was a period of time in which the church tolerated them. At...

Efrain, you make some excellent points. Forgive me if I appear to me nitpicking but sometimes the small distinctions can make a big difference.

these heresies were denounced once their teaching errors were brought
to light. The basic tenants of these heresies were never accepted by
the Church.

The heresies were not immediately denounced as such when the teaching errors were brought to light. Certainly in the case of Arianism and Nestorism the teachings were coming from highly popular and powerful church figures. I would argue that after the teaching errors were "brought to light" but before they were condemned there was a period of time in which the church tolerated them. At least from the Byzantine perspective there was no desire to antagonize a large section of believers. Thus some of these heresies went on for quite a number of years before the "errors" were finally declared to have reached the level of heresy.
In that period before being declared heretical the tenets of the heresy were indeed accepted by the church.

the heretical teachings were never incorporated into the teachings of the Church.

This is only true after the declaration of heresy. Before that they were being used in the teaching of (the affected) churches.

And at least in the case of the Byzantine church "Iconoclasm" was denounced, reinstated,re denounced and re-instated again.

In that period before being declared heretical the tenets of the heresy were indeed accepted by the church.

It depends on what your definition of "church" is. In the case of Arianism for instance, Arius who was a Catholic priest taught that Christ was created and was inferior to the Father. An obvious contradiction to the doctrine of the Trinity. This teaching was never accepted by the Catholic Church.

At the height of Arianism, approximately two thirds of the members of the Catholic Church renounced the doctrine of the Trinity and took up the Arian doctrine and I suppose they formed an Arian church. During the schism, Arius' main doctrinal opponent was St. Athanasius of Ale...

In that period before being declared heretical the tenets of the heresy were indeed accepted by the church.

It depends on what your definition of "church" is. In the case of Arianism for instance, Arius who was a Catholic priest taught that Christ was created and was inferior to the Father. An obvious contradiction to the doctrine of the Trinity. This teaching was never accepted by the Catholic Church.

At the height of Arianism, approximately two thirds of the members of the Catholic Church renounced the doctrine of the Trinity and took up the Arian doctrine and I suppose they formed an Arian church. During the schism, Arius' main doctrinal opponent was St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

But by what authority did Athanasius have to condemn Arianism as heretical? Was it merely a "civil war" between Scripture interpretations? And why did Catholicism prevail, even though they were outnumbered by the Arianists?