Yogi said:

---

I like this.

A Catholic deacon teaching an RCIA csse once said, " We don't worship saints any more than you worship the photogtaphs in your wallet."

I think it would be "the pictures in your phone" today.

Having one side of my family Catholic and one Protestant have taught me that the majority of differences are either misunderstanding or politics.

Talk about substitutes for Jesus.

Love one another.

---

People with photos in their phone or wallet aren't bowing and praying to them, believing they are people with supernatural faculties and abilities from whom they can petition for supernatural intervention.

I am amazed at the number of people who either don't understand this or who try to defend it by motte-and-bailey by retreating to the uncontroversial position that it's all just "honoring" or "learning" from them.

No, unfortunately the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (biblical Christianity) are NOT due to mere misunderstanding or politics. Roman Catholicism is not biblical Christianity, if it can even be called "Christian" at all. The differences lie at the very heart of Christianity - the doctrine of justification and salvation, i.e. the gospel itself. Roman Catholicism corrupts the biblical gospel by teaching salvation by both faith and works. Roman Catholicism started as a compromise with the world's pagan religions and consequently adopted within its traditions many heretical and idolatrous beliefs and practices. And it holds this tradition of fallible man EQUAL in authority with the word of God itself. It also claims infallibility for itself, in that all it's teachings are just as infallible and authoritative as Scripture. The result has been utterly disatrous - a complete departure from true Christianity as taught by Jesus and the apostles, into a form where Mary is their prime deity, who they call "THE ALL HOLY ONE", and who essentially has usurped Jesus both in his role and his characteristics. Roman Catholicism divides the Mediator role of Jesus between him AND Mary (and even gives Mary the primary mediator role), when God has declared that Jesus ALONE, through his death and resurrection, is the one Mediator between all mankind and God. Roman Catholicism simply can not be considered to be the same religion as Christianity, but rather an apostate form of it at best, or an entirely different religion at worst.

This is rough to hear if you're a Roman Catholic and it probably boils your blood, but it just needs to be said to you straight. It's what Jesus would do.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Agreed. Too bad he was so far off in his doctrine. He is right about this.

Roman Catholics: "We don't pray to Mary. We ask her to pray for us."


Roman Catholic Catechism 2679: "Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, [Cf. Jn 19:27] for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her..."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholics: "We don't pray to Mary. We ask her to pray for us."


Roman Catholic Catechism 2679: "Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, [Cf. Jn 19:27] for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her..."

---

The Bible says there is one Mediator between Gid and Men, the Man Christ Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

---

What you're doing IS ad hominem. You're not giving any argument, but you're still insisting you're right and I'm wrong, and you're pointing to what you perceive as my personal flaws as an excuse to not have to make an argument. It's a tired old game played here by you and those "others" you talk about because you want ignore any evidence and argument that goes against what you already want to believe. It's pure defense mechanism. Now, you've gone back and forth with me a few times on this already, and you still have yet to produce any rebuttal to all the evidence that's now right in front of your face, but instead you attack me personally. THAT is what being "determined not to learn" looks like. THAT is what "foolishness" looks like.

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

Why are you always focused on the man, instead of the argument?

If you think I need to admit I'm wrong about something, then what is it? Why not make your case, instead of joining the chorus of ad hominems?

If you continually have to resort to ad hominem instead of actually defending your views, what does that say about your own views and beliefs? And so how can you be comfortable with them? Isn't the truth of the matter far, far more important than what you perceive to be my personal faults?

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

And while we're on the topic....

Do you admit you're wrong about the book of life?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

---

Now, you've gone back and forth with me a few times on this already, and you still have yet to produce any rebuttal

---

Because you've already told me that no rebuttal I could produce would make any difference:

Quote:

---

If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism.

---

This is an iron-clad defense against any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Only you can choose to drop the defense and look at the evidence.

"Belief is not the result of an intellectual act, but the result of an act of my will whereby I deliberately commit myself."

- Oswald Chambers

Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Gal. 6:3-9
Ro 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Today people profess Christ or that they are Christians but are not.

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1Jo 2:4 -5 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Keepeth is a on going process not just a one time thing. To confess him form our heart is to have him. Remember what we confess we posess.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

---

Now, you've gone back and forth with me a few times on this already, and you still have yet to produce any rebuttal

---

Because you've already told me that no rebuttal I could produce would make any difference: ==>

Quote:

---

If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism.

---

This is an iron-clad defense against any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Only you can choose to drop the defense and look at the evidence.

---

It's an iron-clad defense, because you're resorting to the fact that "only" doesn't mean only, and "all" doesn't mean all. With that sort of an argument, you can pretty much claim ANYTHING about Christianity, and about anything else for that matter. It's inherently a self-defeating argument. So it's not so much a "defense" as it's the offense scoring on their own goal.

You're telling me to look at the evidence. I'm asking you what that evidence is, and so far you've balked on that three times already. That's all that anyone really sees in your responses.

Realitybites said:

---

"Belief is not the result of an intellectual act, but the result of an act of my will whereby I deliberately commit myself."

- Oswald Chambers

Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Gal. 6:3-9
Ro 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Today people profess Christ or that they are Christians but are not.

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1Jo 2:4 -5 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Keepeth is a on going process not just a one time thing. To confess him form our heart is to have him. Remember what we confess we posess.

---

Are you really keeping his word if you're bowing and praying to images, and believing your salvation is dependent on your works?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

---

Now, you've gone back and forth with me a few times on this already, and you still have yet to produce any rebuttal

---

Because you've already told me that no rebuttal I could produce would make any difference: ==>

Quote:

---

If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism.

---

This is an iron-clad defense against any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Only you can choose to drop the defense and look at the evidence.

---

It's an iron-clad defense, because you're resorting to the fact that "only" doesn't mean only, and "all" doesn't mean all. With that sort of an argument, you can pretty much claim ANYTHING about Christianity, and about anything else for that matter. It's inherently a self-defeating argument. So it's not so much a "defense" as it's the offense scoring on their own goal.

You're telling me to look at the evidence. I'm asking you what that evidence is, and so far you've balked on that three times already. That's all that anyone really sees in your responses.

---

What do my responses matter? It's Augustine's responses that you should seek out.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

---

Now, you've gone back and forth with me a few times on this already, and you still have yet to produce any rebuttal

---

Because you've already told me that no rebuttal I could produce would make any difference: ==>

Quote:

---

If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism.

---

This is an iron-clad defense against any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Only you can choose to drop the defense and look at the evidence.

---

It's an iron-clad defense, because you're resorting to the fact that "only" doesn't mean only, and "all" doesn't mean all. With that sort of an argument, you can pretty much claim ANYTHING about Christianity, and about anything else for that matter. It's inherently a self-defeating argument. So it's not so much a "defense" as it's the offense scoring on their own goal.

You're telling me to look at the evidence. I'm asking you what that evidence is, and so far you've balked on that three times already. That's all that anyone really sees in your responses.

---

What do my responses matter? It's Augustine's responses that you should seek out.

---

I'm the only one providing them.

Balk four.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

---

Now, you've gone back and forth with me a few times on this already, and you still have yet to produce any rebuttal

---

Because you've already told me that no rebuttal I could produce would make any difference: ==>

Quote:

---

If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism.

---

This is an iron-clad defense against any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Only you can choose to drop the defense and look at the evidence.

---

It's an iron-clad defense, because you're resorting to the fact that "only" doesn't mean only, and "all" doesn't mean all. With that sort of an argument, you can pretty much claim ANYTHING about Christianity, and about anything else for that matter. It's inherently a self-defeating argument. So it's not so much a "defense" as it's the offense scoring on their own goal.

You're telling me to look at the evidence. I'm asking you what that evidence is, and so far you've balked on that three times already. That's all that anyone really sees in your responses.

---

What do my responses matter? It's Augustine's responses that you should seek out.

---

I'm the only one providing them.

---

You're the only one you'll listen to. Keep at it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

More from Augustine:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

Augustine affirmed sola scriptura.

---

Far from it. The "others" he refers to would not include magisterial teachings.

---

Does "only" and "all" mean something different in your Roman Catholic dictionary?

---

You tell me. You could learn a lot from the exercise, not only about Augustine but about context and interpretation in general. The fruit is ripe for picking.

---

No, you tell ME. You're the one saying there's a context, so show us the context. If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism. "Worship", "prayer", "necessary", etc. - words just don't mean what they're supposed to mean. And that would only show exactly why the church fathers and the RC magisterium aren't always to be trusted in what they say.

---

Yet the fact remains that Augustine believed in the magisterium and not sola scriptura.

---

Yet you have only your statement, and I have all of his.

Here's more:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

He's saying that councils, even the ecumenical ones, can err and be corrected. This is not compatible with a belief in an infallible magisterium.

---

Keep looking.

---

If you don't have an argument, why not just be intellectually honest and concede? It just isn't a good look for those who claim to be in the truth.

---

There's no point in arguing with someone who's determined not to learn. If you're ever curious enough, you can easily learn what Augustine believed about Church authority. Otherwise you can keep making yourself look foolish. This is not an ad hominem or an attack on your intelligence. I'm simply making you aware of your position as seen by others. What you do about it is entirely up to you.

---

Now, you've gone back and forth with me a few times on this already, and you still have yet to produce any rebuttal

---

Because you've already told me that no rebuttal I could produce would make any difference: ==>

Quote:

---

If you actually can show that he didn't mean "only" and "all", then you're only demonstrating the "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism.

---

This is an iron-clad defense against any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Only you can choose to drop the defense and look at the evidence.

---

It's an iron-clad defense, because you're resorting to the fact that "only" doesn't mean only, and "all" doesn't mean all. With that sort of an argument, you can pretty much claim ANYTHING about Christianity, and about anything else for that matter. It's inherently a self-defeating argument. So it's not so much a "defense" as it's the offense scoring on their own goal.

You're telling me to look at the evidence. I'm asking you what that evidence is, and so far you've balked on that three times already. That's all that anyone really sees in your responses.

---

What do my responses matter? It's Augustine's responses that you should seek out.

---

I'm the only one providing them.

---

You're the only one you'll listen to. Keep at it.

---

I'll listen to anyone who actually has an argument rather than continually resorting to ad hominems.

Balk five.

Is there anyone who denies sola scriptura that is willing to engage these quotes from Augustine with intellectual honesty? How do these not show that Augustine affirmed sola scriptura?:


"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

"There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

"As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth.... Such writings are read with the right of judgement, and without any obligation to believe." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

"Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain." (On the Trinity, Book 3)

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)


I suggest that before you argue against this, that you first learn what sola scriptura actually means. Too many here are trying to argue against it without even knowing what it is in the first place.

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

With respect, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who posted in this thread that they were even partly wrong on this topic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

With respect, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who posted in this thread that they were even partly wrong on this topic.

---

I have been wrong on matters of religion twice in my life. Really wrong. I was not raised in the church and I converted to Christianity after hearing the gospel. My pre conversion beliefs were obviously wrong.

After 4 or so decades as a typical evangelical baptist, I did a serious investigation into church history around the time of the rise of leftism in the SBC and the closing of the churches during Covid and became Orthodox. While I am glad to have really gotten to know scripture during that time, leaving an entirely profession-based church for confessional Christianity was the right move.

It is just that those realizations and course changes didn't happen in the context of this thread.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

With respect, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who posted in this thread that they were even partly wrong on this topic.

---

I have been wrong on matters of religion twice in my life. Really wrong. I was not raised in the church and I converted to Christianity after hearing the gospel. My pre conversion beliefs were obviously wrong.

After 4 or so decades as a typical evangelical baptist, I did a serious investigation into church history around the time of the rise of leftism in the SBC and the closing of the churches during Covid and became Orthodox. While I am glad to have really gotten to know scripture during that time, leaving an entirely profession-based church for confessional Christianity was the right move.

It is just that those realizations and course changes didn't happen in the context of this thread.

---

But now when confronted with the fact that many of your Orthodox beliefs are NOT based in apostolic OR early church faith and practice, why the sudden resistance to admitting to any wrong?

For example, what is your view on sola scriptura now, given Augustine's view? Still think that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention? What is your view on icon veneration, praying to saints, and Mariology - beliefs and practices that were either completely absent or unanimously disavowed in apostolic and early church teaching?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

With respect, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who posted in this thread that they were even partly wrong on this topic.

---

The person with the most Biblical based answer is the correct one.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

With respect, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who posted in this thread that they were even partly wrong on this topic.

---

The person with the most Biblical based answer is the correct one.

---

Thank you for that, but I'd still like to hear what everyone else has to say.

(jk)

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Question. How many times in this forum have you indicated you were wrong? Partially wrong?

---

With respect, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who posted in this thread that they were even partly wrong on this topic.

---

The person with the most Biblical based answer is the correct one.

---

Thank you for that, but I'd still like to hear what everyone else has to say.

(jk)

---

You don't answer. A biblically based answer is not silence.