Resorting to memes in an argument is not evidence you have a strong case.

And if you wanna talk about 'betting souls', I would not want to explain why my church put up a statue of His mom right next to Jesus, encouraged members to pray to her, and get angry anytime someone points out none of this was Jesus' idea.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Resorting to memes in an argument is not evidence you have a strong case.

And if you wanna talk about 'betting souls', I would not want to explain why my church put up a statue of His mom right next to Jesus, encouraged members to pray to her, and get angry anytime someone points out none of this was Jesus' idea.

---

Memes?

Osas va intercessionary prayer not likely a winning strategy

Watch the video. Interesting food for thought. Consumable on 1.5x

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with thee….

John 19:27 behold your Mother

Au contraire

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

Implicit in the denial of "once saved always saved" is also the denial that 1) Jesus will not lose anything given to him by the Father, and 2) that the Holy Spirit is received upon faith and is a seal and guarantee of our salvation - two things Scripture clearly say are true. (John 6:39, Ephesians 1:13-14, 2 Corinthians 1:22)

Implicit in the denial of "faith alone" is the belief that works are also required for our salvation - when the Bible clearly states that salvation is not of works, and that adding works to the gospel of grace is a false gospel that is accursed, and makes those promoting it accursed as well.

So, talk about "betting souls".

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Resorting to memes in an argument is not evidence you have a strong case.

And if you wanna talk about 'betting souls', I would not want to explain why my church put up a statue of His mom right next to Jesus, encouraged members to pray to her, and get angry anytime someone points out none of this was Jesus' idea.

---

Memes?

Osas va intercessionary prayer not likely a winning strategy

Watch the video. Interesting food for thought. Consumable on 1.5x

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with thee….

John 19:27 behold your Mother

Au contraire

---

Context eludes you, sir.

Your first verse cited Mary's part in Jesus' birth. The Lord's pleasure in Mary's demeanor and faithful obedience, however, in no way makes her holy in the manner of Christ.

The second verse is Jesus' compassion for Mary in seeing Him die, and providing John as a surrogate to comfort her. Again, no reason to consider Mary as a Matriach in, say, the role of Deborah the Judge or Queen Esther.

Should I remind you of the time Mary and Jesus' brothers wanted Him to come out from where He was teaching, because she wanted to talk to Him, and Jesus plainly said that those who serve God are His mother and brothers?

I am not selling the OSAS case. I am simply saying that trying to diss an opinion no more controversial than your own with an overdone 'Princess Bride' reference makes you look petty and bitter, not informed and effective.

And just to confirm, I consider Mary the mother of Jesus to be among the most important women in History.

But she is not our Intercessor, she herself never claimed to be so, nor did Christ ever direct us to ask anyone other than Him for forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Resorting to memes in an argument is not evidence you have a strong case.

And if you wanna talk about 'betting souls', I would not want to explain why my church put up a statue of His mom right next to Jesus, encouraged members to pray to her, and get angry anytime someone points out none of this was Jesus' idea.

---

Memes?

Osas va intercessionary prayer not likely a winning strategy

Watch the video. Interesting food for thought. Consumable on 1.5x

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with thee….

John 19:27 behold your Mother

Au contraire

---

Context eludes you, sir.

Your first verse cited Mary's part in Jesus' birth. The Lord's pleasure in Mary's demeanor and faithful obedience, however, in no way makes her holy in the manner of Christ.

The second verse is Jesus' compassion for Mary in seeing Him die, and providing John as a surrogate to comfort her. Again, no reason to consider Mary as a Matriach in, say, the role of Deborah the Judge or Queen Esther.

Should I remind you of the time Mary and Jesus' brothers wanted Him to come out from where He was teaching, because she wanted to talk to Him, and Jesus plainly said that those who serve God are His mother and brothers?

I am not selling the OSAS case. I am simply saying that trying to diss an opinion no more controversial than your own with an overdone 'Princess Bride' reference makes you look petty and bitter, not informed and effective.

And just to confirm, I consider Mary the mother of Jesus to be among the most important women in History.

But she is not our Intercessor, she herself never claimed to be so, nor did Christ ever direct us to ask anyone other than Him for forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.

---

Did you watch the video In its entirety? Thats the topic im discussing. You seem to want to discuss something else. Carry on discussing princess bride i guess.

No Catholic says Mary is on par with Christ, the God-man whom she birthed.

Jesus had no brothers. Or sisters. Even Martin Luther believed that

Petty and bitter? Projecting much? Its a video topic to discuss. Man be triggered

Since you mentioned it, please list all the things Mary herself claimed to be? Please list them all. Shouldn't take long.

"Among the most important"??? Name a woman more important and above Mary in human history?

Jesus never directed anyone else? Ummm. Really? Who did he say had power to Loose and hold bound?

Some of those are way off topic but are more low hanging fruit that seem to be fundamental misunderstandings of direct verses and easily reviewed with a simple google searxh

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Resorting to memes in an argument is not evidence you have a strong case.

And if you wanna talk about 'betting souls', I would not want to explain why my church put up a statue of His mom right next to Jesus, encouraged members to pray to her, and get angry anytime someone points out none of this was Jesus' idea.

---

Memes?

Osas va intercessionary prayer not likely a winning strategy

Watch the video. Interesting food for thought. Consumable on 1.5x

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with thee….

John 19:27 behold your Mother

Au contraire

---

Context eludes you, sir.

Your first verse cited Mary's part in Jesus' birth. The Lord's pleasure in Mary's demeanor and faithful obedience, however, in no way makes her holy in the manner of Christ.

The second verse is Jesus' compassion for Mary in seeing Him die, and providing John as a surrogate to comfort her. Again, no reason to consider Mary as a Matriach in, say, the role of Deborah the Judge or Queen Esther.

Should I remind you of the time Mary and Jesus' brothers wanted Him to come out from where He was teaching, because she wanted to talk to Him, and Jesus plainly said that those who serve God are His mother and brothers?

I am not selling the OSAS case. I am simply saying that trying to diss an opinion no more controversial than your own with an overdone 'Princess Bride' reference makes you look petty and bitter, not informed and effective.

And just to confirm, I consider Mary the mother of Jesus to be among the most important women in History.

But she is not our Intercessor, she herself never claimed to be so, nor did Christ ever direct us to ask anyone other than Him for forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.

---

Did you watch the video In its entirety? Thats the topic im discussing. You seem to want to discuss something else. Carry on discussing princess bride i guess.

No Catholic says Mary is on par with Christ, the God-man whom she birthed.

Jesus had no brothers. Or sisters. Even Martin Luther believed that

Petty and bitter? Projecting much? Its a video topic to discuss. Man be triggered

Since you mentioned it, please list all the things Mary herself claimed to be? Please list them all. Shouldn't take long.

"Among the most important"??? Name a woman more important and above Mary in human history?

Jesus never directed anyone else? Ummm. Really? Who did he say had power to Loose and hold bound?

Some of those are way off topic but are more low hanging fruit that seem to be fundamental misunderstandings of direct verses and easily reviewed with a simple google searxh

---

"Did you watch the video In its entirety? Thats the topic im discussing. You seem to want to discuss something else. Carry on discussing princess bride i guess."

I replied to what you posted. You attacked OSAS in your post, and apparently you did not even look at the clip you posted referenced a tired, old meme from The Princess Bride as part of a tired, old argument that was over long ago in this thread.

"No Catholic says Mary is on par with Christ, the God-man whom she birthed."

You put her statues in churches close to Christ, you elevate her to rank never set in Scripture (yes she was blessed, as many others were whom you ignore for some reason), and you teach Catholics to go to Mary for intercession instead of simply going straight to God, as Jesus taught us to do.

"Jesus had no brothers. Or sisters. Even Martin Luther believed that"

Hmmm.

Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31 "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him."

Luke 8:19 "Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd."

Matthew 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

John 7:3 "Jesus' brothers said to him, "Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do."

I will stick with what Scripture says, you can go with men who disagree with Scripture.


"Petty and bitter? Projecting much? Its a video topic to discuss. Man be triggered"

Have a reasonable person read your post, and see what they say.


"Since you mentioned it, please list all the things Mary herself claimed to be? Please list them all. Shouldn't take long."

I am not the one worshipping Mary. Telling though, that you try to deflect that point.


"Among the most important"??? Name a woman more important and above Mary in human history?"

Jesus did not rank His disciples, nor the Father His prophets. Only the Roman Catholics assign Mary a position above other believers.

"Jesus never directed anyone else? Ummm. Really? Who did he say had power to Loose and hold bound?"

Surprisingly dishonest of you, as we both knew you cut short from the point that Jesus never directed any of us to pray to Mary or put up statues to her.


"Some of those are way off topic but are more low hanging fruit that seem to be fundamental misunderstandings of direct verses and easily reviewed with a simple google searxh"

And again with the petty and bitter character you claim was my behavior. Sorry son, my points were very much on topic, since you keep attacking other traditions and beliefs you do not like. And frankly, some of your mistakes in your post to me could indeed have been avoided with a search online.

Something you should think about, instead of just attacking out of anger.

,

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

---

You're retreating from your position. Of course Augustine believed in the Church's authority to "help" us interpret. He did not, however, believe the Church was infallible in doing so. He clearly indicated that only Scripture was infallible and that the Church was always liable to be corrected by it. This is as clear of an affirmation of sola scriptura as you can get. Obvious to any intellectually honest person, your Church's view that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention is completely wrong. They've lied to you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

---

You're retreating from your position. Of course Augustine believed in the Church's authority to "help" us interpret. He did not, however, believe the Church was infallible in doing so. He clearly indicated that only Scripture was infallible and that the Church was always liable to be corrected by it. This is as clear of an affirmation of sola scriptura as you can get. Obvious to any intellectually honest person, your Church's view that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention is completely wrong. They've lied to you.

---

He clearly did not indicate that, as one can see from the letter against Manichaeus. Augustine didn't believe the Church could contradict Scripture. But if it did, hypothetically, he would have been forced to question both.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

---

You're retreating from your position. Of course Augustine believed in the Church's authority to "help" us interpret. He did not, however, believe the Church was infallible in doing so. He clearly indicated that only Scripture was infallible and that the Church was always liable to be corrected by it. This is as clear of an affirmation of sola scriptura as you can get. Obvious to any intellectually honest person, your Church's view that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention is completely wrong. They've lied to you.

---

He clearly did not indicate that, as one can see from the letter against Manichaeus. Augustine didn't believe the Church could contradict Scripture. But if it did, hypothetically, he would have been forced to question both.

---

Two points:

1) Augustine believed that the truth of Scripture was founded on the witness of the Church; so if the Church failed, so did their witness to the truth of Scripture, and thus his belief in Scripture fails. However, this does NOT mean that once the truth of Scripture is established, that the Church was infallible in its interpretation and application. These are two very different things. That's what I was illustrating in my analogy about the builder and the helper.

2) Augustine was speaking for himself; he wasn't speaking ecclesially. And he clearly indicated in other writings that even his own writings do not hold infallible truth, that one should not believe or hold true to what he says:

"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)

Augustine would have included his letter against Manichaeus among these. If anything, Augustine is showing himself to be hypocritical in his own writings. His failings are perhaps exactly why he gave the ecclesial instruction that his writings were not infallible and should not be followed without being questioned, unlike Scripture. This disclaimer is pretty much the trump card. His views on Scripture being the only inerrant source and the highest authority are clear and can't be denied.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Resorting to memes in an argument is not evidence you have a strong case.

And if you wanna talk about 'betting souls', I would not want to explain why my church put up a statue of His mom right next to Jesus, encouraged members to pray to her, and get angry anytime someone points out none of this was Jesus' idea.

---

Memes?

Osas va intercessionary prayer not likely a winning strategy

Watch the video. Interesting food for thought. Consumable on 1.5x

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with thee….

John 19:27 behold your Mother

Au contraire

---

Context eludes you, sir.

Your first verse cited Mary's part in Jesus' birth. The Lord's pleasure in Mary's demeanor and faithful obedience, however, in no way makes her holy in the manner of Christ.

The second verse is Jesus' compassion for Mary in seeing Him die, and providing John as a surrogate to comfort her. Again, no reason to consider Mary as a Matriach in, say, the role of Deborah the Judge or Queen Esther.

Should I remind you of the time Mary and Jesus' brothers wanted Him to come out from where He was teaching, because she wanted to talk to Him, and Jesus plainly said that those who serve God are His mother and brothers?

I am not selling the OSAS case. I am simply saying that trying to diss an opinion no more controversial than your own with an overdone 'Princess Bride' reference makes you look petty and bitter, not informed and effective.

And just to confirm, I consider Mary the mother of Jesus to be among the most important women in History.

But she is not our Intercessor, she herself never claimed to be so, nor did Christ ever direct us to ask anyone other than Him for forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.

---

Did you watch the video In its entirety? Thats the topic im discussing. You seem to want to discuss something else. Carry on discussing princess bride i guess.

No Catholic says Mary is on par with Christ, the God-man whom she birthed.

Jesus had no brothers. Or sisters. Even Martin Luther believed that

Petty and bitter? Projecting much? Its a video topic to discuss. Man be triggered

Since you mentioned it, please list all the things Mary herself claimed to be? Please list them all. Shouldn't take long.

"Among the most important"??? Name a woman more important and above Mary in human history?

Jesus never directed anyone else? Ummm. Really? Who did he say had power to Loose and hold bound?

Some of those are way off topic but are more low hanging fruit that seem to be fundamental misunderstandings of direct verses and easily reviewed with a simple google searxh

---

"Did you watch the video In its entirety? Thats the topic im discussing. You seem to want to discuss something else. Carry on discussing princess bride i guess."

I replied to what you posted. You attacked OSAS in your post, and apparently you did not even look at the clip you posted referenced a tired, old meme from The Princess Bride as part of a tired, old argument that was over long ago in this thread.

"No Catholic says Mary is on par with Christ, the God-man whom she birthed."

You put her statues in churches close to Christ, you elevate her to rank never set in Scripture (yes she was blessed, as many others were whom you ignore for some reason), and you teach Catholics to go to Mary for intercession instead of simply going straight to God, as Jesus taught us to do.

"Jesus had no brothers. Or sisters. Even Martin Luther believed that"

Hmmm.

Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31 "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him."

Luke 8:19 "Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd."

Matthew 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

John 7:3 "Jesus' brothers said to him, "Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do."

I will stick with what Scripture says, you can go with men who disagree with Scripture.


"Petty and bitter? Projecting much? Its a video topic to discuss. Man be triggered"

Have a reasonable person read your post, and see what they say.


"Since you mentioned it, please list all the things Mary herself claimed to be? Please list them all. Shouldn't take long."

I am not the one worshipping Mary. Telling though, that you try to deflect that point.


"Among the most important"??? Name a woman more important and above Mary in human history?"

Jesus did not rank His disciples, nor the Father His prophets. Only the Roman Catholics assign Mary a position above other believers.

"Jesus never directed anyone else? Ummm. Really? Who did he say had power to Loose and hold bound?"

Surprisingly dishonest of you, as we both knew you cut short from the point that Jesus never directed any of us to pray to Mary or put up statues to her.


"Some of those are way off topic but are more low hanging fruit that seem to be fundamental misunderstandings of direct verses and easily reviewed with a simple google searxh"

And again with the petty and bitter character you claim was my behavior. Sorry son, my points were very much on topic, since you keep attacking other traditions and beliefs you do not like. And frankly, some of your mistakes in your post to me could indeed have been avoided with a search online.

Something you should think about, instead of just attacking out of anger.

,

---

Did you watch the video? It wasnt about the princess bride so seems not

Clearly triggered you as you then wrote a screed on your own separate topics. Same as always. Deflect. Invent new topics and argue with yourself. Happy to discuss the video or start separate line of discussion on your brotherssnd mary talk or even statues

No catholic worships mary.

Protestants cant worship without sacrifice so make sure what you think you do. So much flawed but none the topic i brought up.

Check out the video .

Be calm. God loves all of us.

Btw nothing in the bible says sola scriptura. In fact it wouldnt exist at all had catholics not assembled it.

Remember, you go to church tomorrow. Hypocrisy now is not a good way for you to get ready.

Arguing something contrary to Scripture is a really bad idea, son.

Just a reminder to all here:

if you are going to have honest discussion here, you need to at least look at the arguments that your opponent gives. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with them, but at least you will know where they are coming from..

REMEMBER: The goal is to be a truth seeker, it's not to win an argument. I believe that if you are an honest truth seeker in your heart and mind, that God will lead you to the real truth.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Arguing something contrary to Scripture is a really bad idea, son.

---

Are you well? Whats with the "son" and name calling? Not particularly engaging and very unlike you from my experience and completely unproductive

Simma down.

Happy to discuss the video or your tertiary topics but the rhetoric needs to be dialed back a bit first, otherwise ill gladly pass on engaging.

Have a blessed Sunday. God loves each of us.

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:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

---

You're retreating from your position. Of course Augustine believed in the Church's authority to "help" us interpret. He did not, however, believe the Church was infallible in doing so. He clearly indicated that only Scripture was infallible and that the Church was always liable to be corrected by it. This is as clear of an affirmation of sola scriptura as you can get. Obvious to any intellectually honest person, your Church's view that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention is completely wrong. They've lied to you.

---

He clearly did not indicate that, as one can see from the letter against Manichaeus. Augustine didn't believe the Church could contradict Scripture. But if it did, hypothetically, he would have been forced to question both.

---

Two points:

1) Augustine believed that the truth of Scripture was founded on the witness of the Church; so if the Church failed, so did their witness to the truth of Scripture, and thus his belief in Scripture fails. However, this does NOT mean that once the truth of Scripture is established, that the Church was infallible in its interpretation and application. These are two very different things.

---

But Augustine expressly links the two.

You are right that his writings and those of other Catholics in general weren't infallible. That's what he's saying in the letter you cited. It is different with magisterial teaching.

I'm fine and perfectly calm, son. Its your projection which causes me to call you 'son', seeing as you are acting out a bit these days.

By the way, it's silly things like saying 'Jesus had no brothers', or getting huffy because I don't shift the topic because you found a super-cool video you would rather we discuss. I did the same thing To Frodo when he made the same 'appeal to authority' fallacy: You may like that video a lot and think it proves your case, but in reality it's extraneous to the discussion and no one is required to debate or praise it just because you like it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'm fine and perfectly calm, son. Its your projection which causes me to call you 'son', seeing as you are acting out a bit these days.

By the way, it's silly things like saying 'Jesus had no brothers', or getting huffy because I don't shift the topic because you found a super-cool video you would rather we discuss. I did the same thing To Frodo when he made the same 'appeal to authority' fallacy: You may like that video a lot and think it proves your case, but in reality it's extraneous to the discussion and no one is required to debate or praise it just because you like it.

---

Peace be with you brother. Seriously.

Its a video on a topic discussed a lot here. Feel free to move on and ignore it. Its clear you dont want to discuss it. Dont be triggered.

Unlike others here i dont know how God will judge us on various things so I share what i know and reasons for it for discussion.

Then things go immediately to petulant name calling etc. total waste of time. Like someone i blocked long ago has hacked your account.

The video is worth a watch though on the topic i brought up, or, as always, choose to ignore

Matters not to me

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:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

---

You're retreating from your position. Of course Augustine believed in the Church's authority to "help" us interpret. He did not, however, believe the Church was infallible in doing so. He clearly indicated that only Scripture was infallible and that the Church was always liable to be corrected by it. This is as clear of an affirmation of sola scriptura as you can get. Obvious to any intellectually honest person, your Church's view that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention is completely wrong. They've lied to you.

---

He clearly did not indicate that, as one can see from the letter against Manichaeus. Augustine didn't believe the Church could contradict Scripture. But if it did, hypothetically, he would have been forced to question both.

---

Two points:

1) Augustine believed that the truth of Scripture was founded on the witness of the Church; so if the Church failed, so did their witness to the truth of Scripture, and thus his belief in Scripture fails. However, this does NOT mean that once the truth of Scripture is established, that the Church was infallible in its interpretation and application. These are two very different things.

---

But Augustine expressly links the two.

You are right that his writings and those of other Catholics in general weren't infallible. That's what he's saying in the letter you cited. It is different with magisterial teaching.

---

There's an equivocation between "authority" in the sense of being in a position to verify something, and "authority" in the sense of an ongoing infallibility. Augustine didn't link these. He clearly held only Scripture as infallible and above ALL in authority. Nowhere does he cite the same infallibility with magisterial teaching. He clearly indicated that the Church can err and be corrected, whether it be individual fathers or even ecumenical councils.

Sure, which is why you keep pushing it.

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:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

---

You're retreating from your position. Of course Augustine believed in the Church's authority to "help" us interpret. He did not, however, believe the Church was infallible in doing so. He clearly indicated that only Scripture was infallible and that the Church was always liable to be corrected by it. This is as clear of an affirmation of sola scriptura as you can get. Obvious to any intellectually honest person, your Church's view that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention is completely wrong. They've lied to you.

---

He clearly did not indicate that, as one can see from the letter against Manichaeus. Augustine didn't believe the Church could contradict Scripture. But if it did, hypothetically, he would have been forced to question both.

---

Two points:

1) Augustine believed that the truth of Scripture was founded on the witness of the Church; so if the Church failed, so did their witness to the truth of Scripture, and thus his belief in Scripture fails. However, this does NOT mean that once the truth of Scripture is established, that the Church was infallible in its interpretation and application. These are two very different things.

---

But Augustine expressly links the two.

You are right that his writings and those of other Catholics in general weren't infallible. That's what he's saying in the letter you cited. It is different with magisterial teaching.

---

There's an equivocation between "authority" in the sense of being in a position to verify something, and "authority" in the sense of an ongoing infallibility. Augustine didn't link these. He clearly held only Scripture as infallible and above ALL in authority. Nowhere does he cite the same infallibility with magisterial teaching. He clearly indicated that the Church can err and be corrected, whether it be individual fathers or even ecumenical councils.

---

Augustine says, "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?" This clearly points to an ongoing interpretive authority.

Infallible statements of ecumenical councils cannot be corrected, but not every statement is in that category.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sure, which is why you keep pushing it.

---

Pushing it? Hadnt hardy posted in this thread in months

Oldbear83 said:

---

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?

---

What proof do you have for this claim?

Augustine specifically states, "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."

How would the "whole of the Body of Christ" give him the authority to believe?

When Augustine wrote his Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Pope Siricius was the Bishop of Rome. He was preceded by Damasus I and followed by Pope Anastasius I.

Finally, why do you use terms like, "the pointy-hat crew in Rome?"

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:

---

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.

---

The builder is ever present and involved. He never left. He still heads the building of houses through his Paraclete. The Paraclete is not the helper who preserved witness of him, the Paraclete IS the builder. The helper and those he recruits to join him are tasked to preserve the plans the builder left for every generation thereafter and they are all to follow the plans precisely, under the guidance of the Paraclete (the builder). The plans the builder left are the only infallible guide to building the houses. The men who are helpers are not themselves infallible. They can err, and must always check themselves against the plans the builder left. Anytime someone claims that the Paraclete gave them additional plans and instructions, they must be weighed against the builder's original plans, because the Paraclete will not go against them. If it does, then the Paraclete did not talk to them.

---

The builders in this analogy would be the Apostles.

---

Actually in my original analogy it was Jesus/apostles/the apostles word, i.e. Scripture as a whole. The helpers are those who followed them (the church). The helpers' "authority" is in their preservation of the builders' witness (i.e. Scripture) and their ability to vouch for its truth, NOT in their ability to always interpret and execute those plans infallibly. That part wasn't in the plans, no matter how the helpers try to convince others that it is. Their work must always be weighed against the only infallible source that is given to them - the original builders' plans.

Regardless, the point is that Augustine was not speaking about church authority being infallible. He clearly only attributes that to Scripture. He clearly elevates Scripture to a different plane than everything else, citing it as the highest authority and the only thing we should always follow. I really don't think this can be denied. Augustine stated this pretty clearly.

---

You can't have a dialogue with Jesus and the Apostles in the same way you can with their successors. Scripture requires interpretation. Augustine believed in the Church's authority to help us interpret.

---

You're retreating from your position. Of course Augustine believed in the Church's authority to "help" us interpret. He did not, however, believe the Church was infallible in doing so. He clearly indicated that only Scripture was infallible and that the Church was always liable to be corrected by it. This is as clear of an affirmation of sola scriptura as you can get. Obvious to any intellectually honest person, your Church's view that sola scriptura is a 500 year old invention is completely wrong. They've lied to you.

---

He clearly did not indicate that, as one can see from the letter against Manichaeus. Augustine didn't believe the Church could contradict Scripture. But if it did, hypothetically, he would have been forced to question both.

---

Two points:

1) Augustine believed that the truth of Scripture was founded on the witness of the Church; so if the Church failed, so did their witness to the truth of Scripture, and thus his belief in Scripture fails. However, this does NOT mean that once the truth of Scripture is established, that the Church was infallible in its interpretation and application. These are two very different things.

---

But Augustine expressly links the two.

You are right that his writings and those of other Catholics in general weren't infallible. That's what he's saying in the letter you cited. It is different with magisterial teaching.

---

There's an equivocation between "authority" in the sense of being in a position to verify something, and "authority" in the sense of an ongoing infallibility. Augustine didn't link these. He clearly held only Scripture as infallible and above ALL in authority. Nowhere does he cite the same infallibility with magisterial teaching. He clearly indicated that the Church can err and be corrected, whether it be individual fathers or even ecumenical councils.

---

Augustine says, "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?" This clearly points to an ongoing interpretive authority.

Infallible statements of ecumenical councils cannot be corrected, but not every statement is in that category.

---

No, that's the equivocation. You're mixing positional and interpretive authority. Augustine clearly says that Scripture is the "highest authority that we must follow". He clearly states that only Scripture is inerrant. Never has he said that ecumenical council statements are infallible. You're negating his direct statements with only your assumptions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You are still dividing his natures, which is in violation of the hypostatic union.

You can continue to respond if you like to this, but I've said all that I need to on the topic. We both know how each other feels about the topic. We each laid out our evidence. I doubt anyone has changed their mind, but that's not my job here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

I'm not twisting or running. You asked for a definition of worship, and I provided an answer of what worship truly is and how God requested it.

Having said that, I've stated before that it is a loaded question. With respect to Mary, it is NOT worship. For others, I don't know.

I keep asking if you would like to discuss a specific topic one at a time, but you won't do it. You are NOT interested in learning. You are interested in making your point. It's not landing.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No. You are reading your beliefs into this AGAIN. Please show me where he says that the Church or the Magisterium can err. He admits that individuals can err, but he never states the Church can err.

Ironically, Saint Augustine, one of the greatest of the Catholic church fathers, believed and wrote about the concept of purgatory , based on his understanding of the inspired text of the Catholic Bible.

Quite serendipitous

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You are, once again, reading what you want into limited passages of his works. As I stated, here he was arguing against Manichean writings ("books of later writers") as canon.

For the sake of the argument, let's say he was writing about all the writings of individuals. NO WHERE in is writing has he stated that the Church or the Magisterium are NOT equal.

Again, you are reading what you want INTO passages.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Yes, I am saying that Sacred Tradition is distinct, but equally important.

Please cite the quote from him that "Sacred Tradition" or Magisterium is NOT of equal importance.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.