BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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?

---

500 and change, basically back to Wycliffe.

There were False Prophets from the beginning. You can't prioritize early Church Doctrine over Scripture:


2 Peter 2:1 KJV
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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?

---

500 and change, basically back to Wycliffe.

---

Balk six.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

There were False Prophets from the beginning. You can't prioritize early Church Doctrine over Scripture:


2 Peter 2:1 KJV
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

---

Exactly, and I just can't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. Even the churches in Acts were being corrupted by a false gospel and Paul had to admonish them severely, saying to stick ONLY to what they were told by him and the other apostles (Galatians 1:8). Today, we need to do the same, by sticking only to what Scripture says, because everything that came from the apostles is in Scripture and nothing else. Anything outside the written word of the apostles, and you just can't be sure it's God's infallible word. This is the basis for sola scriptura. and it's a no-brainer. I just don't see how anyone who calls themself a Christian and who seeks to follow Jesus and Jesus alone, can even argue against this. If this weren't enough, you'd think that a tradition would EASILY be seen as false and a complete corruption when it results in calling someone other than God "THE ALL HOLY ONE" and the belief that salvation comes through someone else other than Jesus, among other clear examples of idolatry and heresy described above. The fact that these aren't clear to some people, and that some people are too afraid to call it out, just goes to show how powerful satanic deception and suppression of the truth can really be. We need to pray that these people have their eyes opened.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

There were False Prophets from the beginning. You can't prioritize early Church Doctrine over Scripture:

2 Peter 2:1 KJV
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

---

Of course no Christian can adhere to or promote any teaching contrary to scripture. Tradition will never contradict the Bible. This is based on oral and written tradition having the same apostolic source (II Thessalonians 2:2) and the faithful transmission of the apostles' teachings to subsequent generations (II Timothy 2:2). Apostolic tradition is guaranteed by Christ's promises that he would give the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth (John 14:23, 16:13) and that the Church would be preserved in the face of satanic opposition (Matthew 16:18). It is also based upon Paul's description of the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (I Timothy 3:15). The opposite corollary is likewise true: whatever contradicts Scripture cannot be Tradition.

But tell me, where does the Bible teach that 'Scripture alone' is our sole authority?

Did the writers of the New Testament believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as they looked at the Old Testament?

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

There were False Prophets from the beginning. You can't prioritize early Church Doctrine over Scripture:

2 Peter 2:1 KJV
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

---

Of course no Christian can adhere to or promote any teaching contrary to scripture. Tradition will never contradict the Bible. This is based on oral and written tradition having the same apostolic source (II Thessalonians 2:2) and the faithful transmission of the apostles' teachings to subsequent generations (II Timothy 2:2). Apostolic tradition is guaranteed by Christ's promises that he would give the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth (John 14:23, 16:13) and that the Church would be preserved in the face of satanic opposition (Matthew 16:18). It is also based upon Paul's description of the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (I Timothy 3:15). The opposite corollary is likewise true: whatever contradicts Scripture cannot be Tradition.

But tell me, where does the Bible teach that 'Scripture alone' is our sole authority?

Did the writers of the New Testament believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as they looked at the Old Testament?

---

Please show us any oral tradition that we know came from Jesus or his original apostles that is NOT in Scripture. I've asked this over and over from all you Roman Catholics and Orthodox, and we've never ever got an answer.

The verses you're citing do not support what you're saying, and are even saying the opposite. 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is NOT saying oral and written tradition have the same apostolic source - it's saying that there might be oral (or written) reports that MAY NOT be from the apostles, and so do not believe it if contradicts what the apostles already told them before. That's pretty much supporting the basis for sola scriptura. You couldn't have gotten this any more wrong.

John 14:23 has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth. John 16:13 is not saying that the CHURCH will be guided into all truth, but rather the APOSTLES themselves. That's why the word of the apostles should be the only infallible guide for the Church (i.e. sola scriptura).

1 Timothy 3:15 isn't saying that the source of truth comes from the Church - God is the source. Rather, it's merely saying that the Church is a "foundation" or "buttress" of the truth because it UPHOLDS and PRESERVES the truth already given to it by God via the apostles.

This is all incorrect and poor exegesis. Ultimately, these verses are used by Roman Catholics and Orthodox christians as an attempt to justify their traditions that they know do not come from Scripture. You're essentially arguing that the Church can produce NEW truths that are not in the Bible, and they must be believed. This is very dangerous. Virtually every false teaching that has ever arisen in the history of the Church can make this same argument. Mormons make the same argument with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. How do you answer their claims?

Ultimately, the very first sentence in my response is where your problem lies.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

There were False Prophets from the beginning. You can't prioritize early Church Doctrine over Scripture:

2 Peter 2:1 KJV
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

---

But tell me, where does the Bible teach that 'Scripture alone' is our sole authority?

---

You STILL do not understand what sola scriptura is. You're getting this wrong over and over and over again. You won't even bother to learn what you're arguing about, which means you're not really caring about what the truth is, you're just concerned with preserving your tradition. That isn't truth seeking. That's indoctrination.

Sola scriptura, put simply, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority for the Church. It doesn't mean there can't be other types of authority that Church members should submit to. It means that ultimately, all doctrine must be weighed against the final authority, which is Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in the Church's possession that is the infallible word from God. It's essentially what Augustine was saying in all those quotes I provided. A fact that all of you just want to conveniently ignore.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

There were False Prophets from the beginning. You can't prioritize early Church Doctrine over Scripture:

2 Peter 2:1 KJV
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

---

But tell me, where does the Bible teach that 'Scripture alone' is our sole authority?

---

You STILL do not understand what sola scriptura is. You're getting this wrong over and over and over again. You won't even bother to learn what you're arguing about, which means you're not really caring about what the truth is, you're just concerned with preserving your tradition. That isn't truth seeking. That's indoctrination.

Sola scriptura, put simply, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority for the Church. It doesn't mean there can't be other types of authority that Church members should submit to. It means that ultimately, all doctrine must be weighed against the final authority, which is Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in the Church's possession that is the infallible word from God. It's essentially what Augustine was saying in all those quotes I provided. A fact that all of you just want to conveniently ignore.

---

AGREED! Scripture trumps all authority! The Church is not infallable. The Pope is not infallable. Bishops, Priests, Nuns, Pastors are not infallable. The early Church was plaqued with false Doctrine. Scripture was written by the Apostles who were directly chosen and taught by Christ Himself.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

AGREED! Scripture trumps all authority! The Church is not infallable. The Pope is not infallable. Bishops, Priests, Nuns, Pastors are not infallable. The early Church was plaqued with false Doctrine. Scripture was written by the Apostles who were directly chosen and taught by Christ Himself.

---

Obviously, all Christians should hold a high view of scripture. What came first, apostolic tradition or scripture?

People are not infallible.

The Holy Spirit is infallible.

How does a Christian who is illiterate follow Christ?

How does a Chrstian from a people group that does not have the Bible translated into their language follow Christ?

How did people for the 1500 years of Christianity from the time Christ founded the Church until the printing press was invented follow Christ?

If scripture is infallible is the Nicene-Constantinople creed also infallible?

Or is it rejected in favor of a "statement of faith" crafted by a skinny jeans wearing pastor because well, we wouldn't want creedalism to interfere with the priesthood of all believers and individual worship styles?

Did the authors of the New Testament believe in Sola Scriptura?

I full well know what Sola Scriptura means. I also know full well that the practical application of Sola Scriptura always becomes Solo Scriptura. That then devolves into Solo Opinionata and you've got pastorettes drop kicking copies of the Bible into a congregation that's jumping around like an Art Briles Baylor sideline.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

AGREED! Scripture trumps all authority! The Church is not infallable. The Pope is not infallable. Bishops, Priests, Nuns, Pastors are not infallable. The early Church was plaqued with false Doctrine. Scripture was written by the Apostles who were directly chosen and taught by Christ Himself.

---

Obviously, all Christians should hold a high view of scripture. What came first, apostolic tradition or scripture?

People are not infallible.

The Holy Spirit is infallible.

How does a Christian who is illiterate follow Christ?

How does a Chrstian from a people group that does not have the Bible translated into their language follow Christ?

How did people for the 1500 years of Christianity from the time Christ founded the Church until the printing press was invented follow Christ?

If scripture is infallible is the Nicene-Constantinople creed also infallible?

Or is it rejected in favor of a "statement of faith" crafted by a skinny jeans wearing pastor because well, we wouldn't want creedalism to interfere with the priesthood of all believers and individual worship styles?

Did the authors of the New Testament believe in Sola Scriptura?

I full well know what Sola Scriptura means. I also know full well that the practical application of Sola Scriptura always becomes Solo Scriptura. That then devolves into Solo Opinionata and you've got pastorettes drop kicking copies of the Bible into a congregation that's jumping around like an Art Briles Baylor sideline.

---

Apostolic tradition IS Scripture. While the apostles were alive, people relied upon their spoken word, since nothing had been written down yet. Today, the apostles are not alive on earth with us anymore. But we do have what they preached written down in Scripture, so in order to rely on what they preached, we have to go by Scripture. Anything outside of Scripture, then we can't be sure it came from them. Sola scriptura wasn't a principle for the Church while the apostles were alive, it's a principle for the Church today.

For the illiterate throughout the centuries, they had to rely on others to teach them from Scripture. Any creed from any council must always weighed against Scripture. What a "skinny jean-wearing" pastor teaches should be judged by what's in Scripture. This is sola scriptura. And no, you didn't know what sola scriptura meant. You'd been arguing the whole time that it meant Scripture was to be the "only" authority. You made the typical mistake. What's worse is that you didn't even bother to check yourself when you were told you were wrong.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is infallible, but anyone can claim inspiration by the Holy Spirit, so the mere claim is NOT infallible. Joseph Smith claimed it. The Gnostics could claim it. The Roman Catholics claim it for their marian idolatry. David Koresh claimed it. How do you check them? BY WHAT'S IN SCRIPTURE. Hence, sola scriptura. Key point: if you submit your understanding and will to authority figures who tell you new things that God has revealed that is NOT in Scripture, or even contradicts it, then you are in a cult.

You still need to answer the first challenge: show us an oral tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles that is NOT in Scripture. If you can't answer it, then your whole position falls flat. You can continue to ignore me and run away from the question, but all that will show is that you are not in the truth. Because those who have the truth aren't afraid to where they have to run away and hide from their own view. Jesus told us that truth was like a lamp in a room - you let it light the whole room, you don't cover it. Hiding, dodging, obfuscating/obscuring - these are all "covering" behaviors. So if what you're saying is true, why not answer me?

Diluting the importance of Scripture and promoting your tradition is not something I see Paul, Peter, James or any of the post-Resurrection disciples getting into.

Humility is a virtue.

Picking fights, that's what the other side does.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Diluting the importance of Scripture and promoting your tradition is not something I see Paul, Peter, James or any of the post-Resurrection disciples getting into.

Humility is a virtue.

Picking fights, that's what the other side does.

---

You have very poor discernment. No one is picking fights. Please stop with your nonsense, hypocritical judgements.

By the way - I guess you consider Jesus on "the other side" because he was picking fights when he overturned the money-changers' tables and drove them out with a whip.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Which means that his nature was not contained in one space, i.e. the womb.

His body being in one place, while his nature being present everywhere at the same time, is not separating them. Your thinking on this is too limited.

You're trying to argue an oxymoron, no matter how you slice it.

---

Both natures are in his body. His divine nature is both inside and omnipresent. You are still trying to separate them. His divine nature was with him when he was conceived and born.

Why are you arguing against history, Church fathers, and even three "Reformers?" Is the anti-Catholic bias that strong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So educate me on what worship is. What's your answer?

---

The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is SACRIFICE.

I finally understand why you struggle so much in thinking that "Catholics worship Mary, the saints, etc."

You don't understand what worship really is. Your version of worship is incomplete and lacking. You (and many others) think that worship is ONLY praying to, praising, and singing songs about God.

When you see Catholics asking the Mary for intercession or when you hear Catholics sing Marian hymns, your mind is instantly triggered into to thinking that Catholics are worshipping her.

Singing songs about someone is NOT worship. Praising someone is NOT worship. Asking someone to pray or intercede is NOT worship.

Singing hymns and prayers can be a small part of worship when directed to GOD. The Catholic Church embraces the fullness of worship. We offer sacrifice. Just like Jesus told us to.

All throughout human history, mankind has offered sacrifice to their god. Egyptians offered food, drink, etc. Many cultures (Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Native Americans, etc.) offered animal sacrifices. Sadly, some cultures like the Aztecs offered human sacrifice.

Cain and Able, Noah, Melchizedek (Bread and Wine), Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and Aaron gave sacrifices to God.

At the first Passover, it was the sacrifice of the unblemished male lamb which had to be EATEN. At the Last Supper, what/who was the Ultimate Sacrifice? Jesus. He offered himself as the sacrifice. He was priest and victim.

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Jesus commanded us to do this. Catholics take him seriously. We do this at every mass. It is officially called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is done 364 days a year (no mass on Good Friday.)

Catholics are NOT "re-sacrificing" Jesus every day.

The Catechism states:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

Most protestants don't get this. The Mass is a sacrifice. We bring our gifts of bread and wine to the altar and present them to the LORD. The Holy Spirit comes down, takes our offering and changes them into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

What protestants do isn't FULLY worship. Yes, they do offer their "sacrifice of praise" to God. They do sing songs, hymns, etc. This is fine. It is good. I'll even call it great. But is it absolutely incomplete when it comes to worshipping as God requested.

The Mass is the HIGHEST form of worship.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your problem remains, Coke Bear.

Jesus never said anything to support the Marian ... devotion.

At best it's ascriptural.

Still more pleasing to God than Joel Osteen, though.

---

Jesus never said to celebrate Christmas. He never said to celebrate his resurrection. Should we abandon these practices?

Unfortunately, I have failed to help several here understand that having a devotion to Mary actually honors Jesus. She is only great because of Jesus.

When we admire or praise Michelangelo's David, the acclaim actually goes to Michelangelo. It is the same with Mary. The acclaim belongs to Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?:

---

WOW! Talk about eisegesis!

Even protestants don't believe Augustine taught or believed in sola scriptura:

Famous Calvinist theologian BB Warfield said, "The reformation inwardly considered was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church, which wouldn't make sense if Augustine believed in sola scriptura and denied the church's infallible authority."

Protestant church history Professor Mark Ellingson says of Augustine, "when decisions were to be made about ecclesiastical matters, he appealed to both the Bible and tradition allowing them to function, especially in cases where scripture laid down, no definite rule indeed against the Manichaean heretics."

Augustine referred to the "rule of faith" which involves the foundational doctrines handed down through the Church. He considered the interpretive community of the Church essential for understanding Scripture correctly.

He also famously said, "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He affirms that the Church is the custodian of Scripture, whose authority helps guide and confirm the correct interpretation of the Word of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

Who can interpret Holy Scripture infallibly? You? I think not. The Holy Spirit has guided the Magisterium to do that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

You must be getting your material from biased protestant sources. Augustine here was arguing Against Faustus because he was trying to include Manichean writings ("books of later writers") as canon. Augustine rejected those works, not the Magisterium.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

I don't understand. Would you expect him to say that his writings are superior to Holy Scripture?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

Here Augustine affirms the importance of scripture. He is also discussing the importance of doctrinal development in which the earlier regional councils may be corrected by later ones as new insights are gained. This is not an affirmation of sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You are arguing that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith. This is NOT correct.

Catholics do recognize the foundational and preeminent role of Scripture as the inspired Word of God within the triad of Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. It takes ALL three, otherwise, you have the wild west and we have hundreds, if not thousands of denominations that think that they have interpreted the Bible correctly. This is exactly why Luther was shocked and offended that others (protestants) would hold to different beliefs than his own.

Finally, Augustine believed in the Real Presence

• What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.
• He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring.

Augustine firmly believed in Mary's perpetual virginity:

• "Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual"

Augustine also affirmed the Deuterocanon as scripture as he was at both Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

So, if you're going to (falsely) claim that Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, then you must accept his beliefs in the Deuterocanon as scripture, the Real Presence, Perpetual Virginity, and (bonus) Original Sin.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You still need to answer the first challenge: show us an oral tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles that is NOT in Scripture. If you can't answer it, then your whole position falls flat. You can continue to ignore me and run away from the question, but all that will show is that you are not in the truth. Because those who have the truth aren't afraid to where they have to run away and hide from their own view. Jesus told us that truth was like a lamp in a room - you let it light the whole room, you don't cover it. Hiding, dodging, obfuscating/obscuring - these are all "covering" behaviors. So if what you're saying is true, why not answer me?

---

Easy …

1) The Canon of Scripture. No where in the Bible does it list specifically what the Canon is.

2) The Authorship of the Gospels NONE of the 4 gospels states who the author is.

3) The Trinity No where in the Bible does it use the term, nor does it state that the concept of God existing as three co-equal persons.

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus:

Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe?

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you -- If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;-- Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichaeus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me.

Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus.

You do understand that the 'Catholic' Church he spoke of is not the pointy-hat crew in Rome, but the whole of the Body of Christ, right?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Which means that his nature was not contained in one space, i.e. the womb.

His body being in one place, while his nature being present everywhere at the same time, is not separating them. Your thinking on this is too limited.

You're trying to argue an oxymoron, no matter how you slice it.

---

Both natures are in his body. His divine nature is both inside and omnipresent. You are still trying to separate them. His divine nature was with him when he was conceived and born.

Why are you arguing against history, Church fathers, and even three "Reformers?" Is the anti-Catholic bias that strong?

---

Once again - his divine nature was not confined to his body, otherwise he could not be omnipresent. This is not a separation of the two natures that are in union. The union is not physical.

Jesus' divine nature was with him when he was born, but being that his divine nature was not confined to his body, his divine nature was not birthed through the birth canal. And since his divine nature was not birthed, it has no mother. And since God is not God without his divine nature, then God has no mother.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So educate me on what worship is. What's your answer?

---

The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is SACRIFICE.

I finally understand why you struggle so much in thinking that "Catholics worship Mary, the saints, etc."

You don't understand what worship really is. Your version of worship is incomplete and lacking. You (and many others) think that worship is ONLY praying to, praising, and singing songs about God.

When you see Catholics asking the Mary for intercession or when you hear Catholics sing Marian hymns, your mind is instantly triggered into to thinking that Catholics are worshipping her.

Singing songs about someone is NOT worship. Praising someone is NOT worship. Asking someone to pray or intercede is NOT worship.

Singing hymns and prayers can be a small part of worship when directed to GOD. The Catholic Church embraces the fullness of worship. We offer sacrifice. Just like Jesus told us to.

All throughout human history, mankind has offered sacrifice to their god. Egyptians offered food, drink, etc. Many cultures (Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Native Americans, etc.) offered animal sacrifices. Sadly, some cultures like the Aztecs offered human sacrifice.

Cain and Able, Noah, Melchizedek (Bread and Wine), Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and Aaron gave sacrifices to God.

At the first Passover, it was the sacrifice of the unblemished male lamb which had to be EATEN. At the Last Supper, what/who was the Ultimate Sacrifice? Jesus. He offered himself as the sacrifice. He was priest and victim.

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Jesus commanded us to do this. Catholics take him seriously. We do this at every mass. It is officially called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is done 364 days a year (no mass on Good Friday.)

Catholics are NOT "re-sacrificing" Jesus every day.

The Catechism states:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

Most protestants don't get this. The Mass is a sacrifice. We bring our gifts of bread and wine to the altar and present them to the LORD. The Holy Spirit comes down, takes our offering and changes them into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

What protestants do isn't FULLY worship. Yes, they do offer their "sacrifice of praise" to God. They do sing songs, hymns, etc. This is fine. It is good. I'll even call it great. But is it absolutely incomplete when it comes to worshipping as God requested.

The Mass is the HIGHEST form of worship.

---

You're running away from the question and twisting yourself into a pretzel. The question you've repeatedly avoided is really simple.

If I take ANY person or thing, and I:

• make statues or images of it and put them all over my house and in CHURCH;
• bow down to, pray to, and kiss those images, even in church;
• sing hymns to it;
• hold tens of festival throughout the year for it;
• make prayers to it where I say its name ten times the amount I say God's name;
• makes Psalms to it, where I take the Psalms of the Old Testament and insert its name where God's name was.
• say prayers to it where I call it "the salvation of the universe","Mediator(trix)", "ruler of my house", "sovereign";
• say prayers where I ask it to "grant that I may go to heaven";
• tell it that I "place my salvation in its hands";
• say that whatever it says is an established Law for the Lord that He MUST obey;
• say that it is the "road we must travel to get to God";
• say that "every good thing we obtain, we obtain through it";
• call it "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• say that one can NOT HAVE SALVATION UNLESS THROUGH IT.

and I DON'T call it "God", "Savior", or consider it part of the Trinity, or sacrifice to it in any way......

Would all this be worship of it? It's a yes or a no. Can we finally get an answer?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?:

---

WOW! Talk about eisegesis!

Even protestants don't believe Augustine taught or believed in sola scriptura:

Famous Calvinist theologian BB Warfield said, "The reformation inwardly considered was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church, which wouldn't make sense if Augustine believed in sola scriptura and denied the church's infallible authority."

Protestant church history Professor Mark Ellingson says of Augustine, "when decisions were to be made about ecclesiastical matters, he appealed to both the Bible and tradition allowing them to function, especially in cases where scripture laid down, no definite rule indeed against the Manichaean heretics."

Augustine referred to the "rule of faith" which involves the foundational doctrines handed down through the Church. He considered the interpretive community of the Church essential for understanding Scripture correctly.

He also famously said, "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He affirms that the Church is the custodian of Scripture, whose authority helps guide and confirm the correct interpretation of the Word of God.

---

You're telling me everything except what Augustine said. Augustine CLEARLY is saying that ONLY Scripture is inerrant. Not the Church. The Church can err. It's all there in black and white. You're just dancing around this.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

Who can interpret Holy Scripture infallibly? You? I think not. The Holy Spirit has guided the Magisterium to do that.

---

Tell me where Augustine said that the Church interprets Scripture infallibly? He clearly states that even ecumenical councils can err and be corrected.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

You must be getting your material from biased protestant sources. Augustine here was arguing Against Faustus because he was trying to include Manichean writings ("books of later writers") as canon. Augustine rejected those works, not the Magisterium.

---

Augustine is clearly arguing that Scripture is on a separate plane from everything else. The magisterium can not go against it. He is not saying that he magisterium is on the same level, or is infallible like Scripture.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

I don't understand. Would you expect him to say that his writings are superior to Holy Scripture?

---

Or on the same level. Which is what you're saying when you say Tradition is on the same level as Scripture in infallibility and authority, which Augustine is clearly against.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"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)

---

Here Augustine affirms the importance of scripture. He is also discussing the importance of doctrinal development in which the earlier regional councils may be corrected by later ones as new insights are gained. This is not an affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You are arguing that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith. This is NOT correct.

Catholics do recognize the foundational and preeminent role of Scripture as the inspired Word of God within the triad of Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. It takes ALL three, otherwise, you have the wild west and we have hundreds, if not thousands of denominations that think that they have interpreted the Bible correctly. This is exactly why Luther was shocked and offended that others (protestants) would hold to different beliefs than his own.

---

Augustine stated NONE of this.

Coke Bear said:

---

So, if you're going to (falsely) claim that Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, then you must accept his beliefs in the Deuterocanon as scripture, the Real Presence, Perpetual Virginity, and (bonus) Original Sin.

---

This demonstrates the utter sloppiness of your thinking and logic. Just because I correctly state that Augustine was correct in affirming sola scriptura, it does NOT mean that I have to believe everything else he said was correct too. This is logic that even a child understands. Yikes.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You still need to answer the first challenge: show us an oral tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles that is NOT in Scripture. If you can't answer it, then your whole position falls flat. You can continue to ignore me and run away from the question, but all that will show is that you are not in the truth. Because those who have the truth aren't afraid to where they have to run away and hide from their own view. Jesus told us that truth was like a lamp in a room - you let it light the whole room, you don't cover it. Hiding, dodging, obfuscating/obscuring - these are all "covering" behaviors. So if what you're saying is true, why not answer me?

---

Easy …

1) The Canon of Scripture. No where in the Bible does it list specifically what the Canon is.

2) The Authorship of the Gospels NONE of the 4 gospels states who the author is.

3) The Trinity No where in the Bible does it use the term, nor does it state that the concept of God existing as three co-equal persons.

---

1) There is no oral tradition where Jesus or his apostles listed the canon of Scripture.

2) There is no oral tradition where Jesus or his apostles named the authors of the Gospels.

3) There is no oral tradition where Jesus or his apostles spoke of the Trinity.

"Nestorianism Quick Facts

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus' human nature. In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary's womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Nestorius of Antioch

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Ephesus in 431AD

Arians taught that Christ was a created being. To refute this and other points, Nestorius argued that the Godhead joined with the human rather as if a man entered a tent or put on clothes. Instead of depicting Christ as one unified person, Nestorius saw him as a conjunction of two natures so distinct as to be different persons who had merged.

Nestorius refused to call Mary the "Mother of God." Her baby was very human, he said."

The consequences of Nestorianism is to create a Jesus who is merely indwelt by the Holy Spirit as we ordinary Christians are, and cannot save you. Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches all speak with one voice in condemning Nestorianism as a heresy. Nestorianism is a direct contradiction of John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Don't buy the lie.

How do you know that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by those four individuals?

Well, it says so right here in my Bible in black and white large font on the first page of each gospel.

Sure, but how did whoever printed your Bible know to put those titles there for books written 2000 years ago?

Here's how: a church father named Irenaeus of Lyons who fell asleep in the Lord in 202 AD. Saint Irenaeus was from Smyrna, a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of Saint John the Evangelist. His best known work "Against the Heresies," written around 185 CE, still survives, and you can get it today in a handy English translation. I would recommend reading it.

Anyway, next time you quote a gospel in church or Sunday school, realize that without Irenaeus identifying their authors you would only be able to say in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as Justin did in 150-160 AD.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus:

Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe?

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you -- If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;-- Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichaeus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me.

Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus.

---

Augustine isn't saying that the Church had the "authority" to tell him to believe the gospel. What he's saying is that he believed the gospel because of the Church's "authority" in the sense that the Church represented a continuous line and an unbroken chain of witness that went back to Jesus and his apostles; thus the Church possessed the preserved witness of the original apostles and had the credibility to speak to the truth of it and vouch for the apostles and their authorship of Scripture. Once that truth had been established in his mind, Scripture represented the infallible word of God. This in no way means that Augustine believed that since the Church was an "authoritative" source for the validity of the witness of the apostles, it also meant the Church had "authority" in the form of leaders (i.e. magisterium) that was on par with Scripture, and that could infallibly direct the Church.

To illustrate with an analogy, suppose you worked as a helper to someone who built houses flawlessly. When you go into a town of people needing houses, you are an "authority" to the truth that the person you worked for could build houses flawlessly because you worked directly under him and saw everything. Hence, the people view you as the authority to that truth, and so on your witness they hire that builder. In other words, "they should not believe the builder except as moved by your authority." Now, once the building of the houses starts, they listen to him as the infallible source for building, and they do exactly what he says. They don't listen to you, however, because though you were an authority in vouching for that builder, it doesn't make you an infallible authority on building houses.

The quote you provided above in no way contradicts his other quotes affirming sola scriptura. It is compatible with it. Augustine clearly indicated that he believed the ONLY inerrant source was Scripture and that all other sources were secondary, as is made evident in his quotes. Here's another such quote in addition to the ones already mentioned:

"But there are others who do not say that all these truths are false. They honour your sacred Scripture, which you gave to us through your holy servant Moses, and just as I do, they look on it as the highest authority that we must follow." (Confessions, 12.19)

Realitybites said:

---

"Nestorianism Quick Facts

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus' human nature. In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary's womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Nestorius of Antioch

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Ephesus in 431AD

Arians taught that Christ was a created being. To refute this and other points, Nestorius argued that the Godhead joined with the human rather as if a man entered a tent or put on clothes. Instead of depicting Christ as one unified person, Nestorius saw him as a conjunction of two natures so distinct as to be different persons who had merged.

Nestorius refused to call Mary the "Mother of God." Her baby was very human, he said."

The consequences of Nestorianism is to create a Jesus who is merely indwelt by the Holy Spirit as we ordinary Christians are, and cannot save you. Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches all speak with one voice in condemning Nestorianism as a heresy. Nestorianism is a direct contradiction of John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Don't buy the lie.

---

One can believe in the union of Jesus divine and human natures, and still reasonably reject the contrived leap towards calling Mary the "Mother of God".

God is not going to send people to Hell over man-made doctrines.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus:

Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe?

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you -- If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;-- Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichaeus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me.

Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus.

---

Augustine isn't saying that the Church had the "authority" to tell him to believe the gospel. What he's saying is that he believed the gospel because of the Church's "authority" in the sense that the Church represented a continuous line and an unbroken chain of witness that went back to Jesus and his apostles; thus the Church possessed the preserved witness of the original apostles and had the credibility to speak to the truth of it and vouch for the apostles and their authorship of Scripture. Once that truth had been established in his mind, Scripture represented the infallible word of God. This in no way means that Augustine believed that since the Church was an "authoritative" source for the validity of the witness of the apostles, it also meant the Church had "authority" in the form of leaders (i.e. magisterium) that was on par with Scripture, and that could infallibly direct the Church.

To illustrate with an analogy, suppose you worked as a helper to someone who built houses flawlessly. When you go into a town of people needing houses, you are an "authority" to the truth that the person you worked for could build houses flawlessly because you worked directly under him and saw everything. Hence, the people view you as the authority to that truth, and so on your witness they hire that builder. In other words, "they should not believe the builder except as moved by your authority." Now, once the building of the houses starts, they listen to him as the infallible source for building, and they do exactly what he says. They don't listen to you, however, because though you were an authority in vouching for that builder, it doesn't make you an infallible authority on building houses.

The quote you provided above in no way contradicts his other quotes affirming sola scriptura. It is compatible with it. Augustine clearly indicated that he believed the ONLY inerrant source was Scripture and that all other sources were secondary, as is made evident in his quotes. Here's another such quote in addition to the ones already mentioned:

"But there are others who do not say that all these truths are false. They honour your sacred Scripture, which you gave to us through your holy servant Moses, and just as I do, they look on it as the highest authority that we must follow." (Confessions, 12.19)

---

There is no builder on earth any more. The builders have gone to heaven, and Scripture is the edifice that they left for us. We know it's a sound edifice by the witness of the helper. If you can't trust his knowledge of design and construction, there's reason to doubt his judgment altogether.

This is an excellent talk on a topic bandied around here in months past. I think much has been discussed about the fallacy of faith alone and osas here.

Nice summary which pulls in the protestant perspective and posits some well thought out refutations

While i could never understand believing in osas and betting my soul on that, i do often wonder why, although in smaller numbers, God would allow such numbers of people to exist through various interpretations given a point most Christians would believe is so critical to ones eternal salvation.

For consideration and enjoyment