Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

You're only saying that I'm dividing his natures. But you're not showing it and you can't show it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

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

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

---

Augustine stated NONE of this.

---

I never said that he did.

You stated that "many here are trying to argue against it without even knowing what it is in the first place."

I provided a common understanding of what sola scripture is AND the I provided a Catholic response.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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

---

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

---

Let's try this differently.

You call MY logic utterly sloppy because I challenged the fact that he "supposedly" believed sola-scriptura, but believed in the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, Original Sin, and considered all 46 books of the OT as canon.

HOW did he (one of the wisest men ever) get those beliefs FROM the Bible, if he believed in sola-scriptura?

You have created, twisting a handful of passages from the volumes of his writings, a false narrative and credited him with something that was made up 1100+ years later by the so-called "reformers."

You stated that he believed in sola scriptura, yet NO other writer for those 1100 years ever once discussed his "belief" in sola-scriptura nor did they even try to rebuke him for these "beliefs."

I'll quote him again:

"I would NOT believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He clearly believed in the authority of the Church and the infallibility of scripture.

You have failed to produce ONE quote that said that the Church or the Magisterium could err.

I feel that most of the other protestants on this thread would agree that your thinking is flawed here. They may not believe in the key tenants of the Catholic faith, but I ask them which proposition seems more logical?

Option A: a few of Augustine's quotes (used out of context) prove that he believed in sola-scriptura DISPITE the fact that he held deeply Catholic beliefs.

Option B: he didn't believe in sola-scriptura.

Most intellectually honest people would recognize that you have falsely attributed sola scriptura to one of the wisest men that ever walked the earth.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

based on the comments its clear hes never read confessions or City of God etc.

Or didnt understand them

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

So there's essentially your answer: it's not worship for Mary, but doing the exact same things may or may not be worship for all else.

That's what's called a double standard. That's what twisting yourself into a pretzel for your argument to work looks like. Your argument rests on pure fallacy, and so it has failed. How can any intellectually honest person continue on with this belief knowing this? Do you REALLY buy what you're trying to sell yourself?

And MY GOD - if you CAN'T say that it's WORSHIP when someone bows to, prays to, and kisses a statue of Baal IN CHURCH, and calls it "THE ALL HOLY ONE" and says that eternal salvation comes through Baal, and all the other things I listed, then I'm sorry, I'm just going to state it like it is - you are foolish and completely LOST. The only hope I have for you is that you don't actually believe this, you're aware that it's worship and that it's wrong - but you HAVE TO argue it to save your beliefs about Mary. But who do you think you'd be fooling? Do you really think you can fool God?

Regarding the addressing of the topics one at a time - apparently, you just can't comprehend that it is completely irrelevant to argue the points individually. The point was whether the SAME SET of things that you do for Mary is "worship" if you do it for anyone or anything else other than Mary. It would make no difference how you argue them individually - the question will just become whether that individual argument applies for any entity other than Mary. For example, you can try to argue a justification for the bowing and praying to statues of Mary, but the question will become would that same justification work for any entity I want to make an image of, and pray and bow to. The answer is the same for the list as a whole as it is for each item individually, regardless of how you answer it. Please try to understand this so you'll stop repeating your same tired argument that I'm avoiding this.

The answer to the question is as clear as day for any Christian, whether you treat the list as a whole or individually - YES, it's worship, and NO, it is not okay with God. If you really can't recognize why putting statues of something IN CHURCH and bowing in reverence, kissing, and praying to it is wrong, even when the 2nd commandment is staring at you in the face - then to be frank, you're completely bewitched by the Devil.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

I gave the citations where he literally says that Church councils are liable to be corrected by later ones. You can't believe in an infallible magisterium if that were the case.

And you seem to be forgetting that the burden of proof is on YOU. Augustine directly states that only Scripture is infallible and is the highest authority we must follow. Where does he say the same for the magisterium?

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Who said anything about "importance"? The question is infallibility, which is central to the concept of sola scriptura.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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

---

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

---

Let's try this differently.

You call MY logic utterly sloppy because I challenged the fact that he "supposedly" believed sola-scriptura, but believed in the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, Original Sin, and considered all 46 books of the OT as canon.

HOW did he (one of the wisest men ever) get those beliefs FROM the Bible, if he believed in sola-scriptura?

You have created, twisting a handful of passages from the volumes of his writings, a false narrative and credited him with something that was made up 1100+ years later by the so-called "reformers."

You stated that he believed in sola scriptura, yet NO other writer for those 1100 years ever once discussed his "belief" in sola-scriptura nor did they even try to rebuke him for these "beliefs."

I'll quote him again:

"I would NOT believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He clearly believed in the authority of the Church and the infallibility of scripture.

You have failed to produce ONE quote that said that the Church or the Magisterium could err.

I feel that most of the other protestants on this thread would agree that your thinking is flawed here. They may not believe in the key tenants of the Catholic faith, but I ask them which proposition seems more logical?

Option A: a few of Augustine's quotes (used out of context) prove that he believed in sola-scriptura DISPITE the fact that he held deeply Catholic beliefs.

Option B: he didn't believe in sola-scriptura.

Most intellectually honest people would recognize that you have falsely attributed sola scriptura to one of the wisest men that ever walked the earth.

---

Its quite interesting how many have heaped hope
In sola scriptura when for hundreds of years there wasnt a scriptura to sola in the form used by the people that invented it 1500 years after Christ was crucified

Even what became the scriptura says its not possible but since its not john 3:16 they ignore it

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

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

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

---

Augustine stated NONE of this.

---

I never said that he did.

You stated that "many here are trying to argue against it without even knowing what it is in the first place."

I provided a common understanding of what sola scripture is AND the I provided a Catholic response.

---

You didn't provide what you think the common understanding of what sola scriptura is at all. You merely argued for why Tradition and Magisterium are considered just as authorititative as Scripture to Catholics.

I know we got some augustine experts here but just to throw some food for thought out there:

"For I am not so foolish as to think that I can resolve all difficulties in the Scriptures, or that my interpretation is always correct; but I am certain that what is contrary to the truth of the Scriptures or to the Catholic faith must be rejected."

Augustine famously saw the Catholic church (what became what we call the magisterium ) as having a key role in clarifying and teaching

He also often humbly recognized his possible limitations in interpreting scripture.

Now several here for sure are well more learned in scripture than Saint augustine so maybe we'll lesrn sumptin

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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

---

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

---

Let's try this differently.

You call MY logic utterly sloppy because I challenged the fact that he "supposedly" believed sola-scriptura, but believed in the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, Original Sin, and considered all 46 books of the OT as canon.

HOW did he (one of the wisest men ever) get those beliefs FROM the Bible, if he believed in sola-scriptura?

You have created, twisting a handful of passages from the volumes of his writings, a false narrative and credited him with something that was made up 1100+ years later by the so-called "reformers."

You stated that he believed in sola scriptura, yet NO other writer for those 1100 years ever once discussed his "belief" in sola-scriptura nor did they even try to rebuke him for these "beliefs."

I'll quote him again:

"I would NOT believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He clearly believed in the authority of the Church and the infallibility of scripture.

You have failed to produce ONE quote that said that the Church or the Magisterium could err.

I feel that most of the other protestants on this thread would agree that your thinking is flawed here. They may not believe in the key tenants of the Catholic faith, but I ask them which proposition seems more logical?

Option A: a few of Augustine's quotes (used out of context) prove that he believed in sola-scriptura DISPITE the fact that he held deeply Catholic beliefs.

Option B: he didn't believe in sola-scriptura.

Most intellectually honest people would recognize that you have falsely attributed sola scriptura to one of the wisest men that ever walked the earth.

---

Your "sloppy" and really, really bad logic was your argument that since I agreed with Augustine on sola scriptura, it means I should agree with everything else he said. You aren't even getting this part right. Debating you is really fruitless. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that I really think prevents you from understanding the arguments, and why you think you can debate them when you really can't.

Read my back and forth with Sam Lowry about what Augustine said regarding the "authority of the Church". I'm not going to repeat them here.

Augustine clearly believed in sola scriptura as his writings indicate - but also believed in non-scriptural things, perhaps believing them to be in Scripture, because just as he clearly stated in his writings, HE IS NOT INFALLIBLE and is liable to err, and is liable to be corrected.

In the end, I have Augustine's direct statements affirming sola scriptura, and you have nothing where he believed that the Church had the same infallible authority. It's quite amazing that you are denying what Augustine is explicitly saying when it's right in front of you. I am fully convinced that NO evidence, no matter how undeniable, could ever change what you already decided on believing. I literally could give you a quote from a church father saying "Yes, I believe sola scriptura to be true" and you'd scramble to find a way to deny it. It really has gotten this bad with Roman Catholics. Your minds really are trapped in deception, and you need serious prayers.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

based on the comments its clear hes never read confessions or City of God etc.

Or didnt understand them

---

I'd be glad to debate who is the one who didn't really understand things, but we all know that you are afraid to debate me, that's why you had to "block" me. You're not fooling anyone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I know we got some augustine experts here but just to throw some food for thought out there:

"For I am not so foolish as to think that I can resolve all difficulties in the Scriptures, or that my interpretation is always correct; but I am certain that what is contrary to the truth of the Scriptures or to the Catholic faith must be rejected."

Augustine famously saw the Catholic church (what became what we call the magisterium ) as having a key role in clarifying and teaching

He also often humbly recognized his possible limitations in interpreting scripture.

Now several here for sure are well more learned in scripture than Saint augustine so maybe we'll lesrn sumptin

---

Key role in clarifying and teaching Scripture, yes. Being infallible in doing so, NO. Augustine clearly and expliciitly only attributes infallibility to Scripture, and Scripture alone. His statements are right there in front of you. All you guys are doing is dancing around them.

"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". (Augustine, Confessions 12.16)

Today, August 11th, the family of God remembers

Martyr and Archdeacon Euplus of Catania

The Martyr Archdeacon Euplus suffered in the year 304 under the emperors Diocletian (284-305) and Maximian (305-311). He served in the Sicilian city of Catania. Always carrying the Gospel with him, Saint Euplus preached constantly to the pagans about Christ.

Once, while he explained the Gospel to the gathered crowd, they arrested him and took him to the governor of the city, Calvisianus. Saint Euplus confessed himself a Christian and denounced the impiety of idol-worship. For this they sentenced him to torture.

They threw the injured saint into prison, where he remained in prayer for seven days. The Lord made a spring of water flow into the prison for the martyr to quench his thirst. Brought to trial a second time, strengthened and rejoicing, he again confessed his faith in Christ and denounced the torturer for spilling the blood of innocent Christians.

The judge commanded that the saint's ears be torn off, and that he be beheaded. Having asked time for prayer, the archdeacon began to explain the Gospel to the people, and many of the pagans believed in Christ. The soldiers beheaded the saint with a sword.

His relics are in the village of Vico della Batonia, near Naples.

Saint Euplus, pray for us.

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

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

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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

---

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

---

Let's try this differently.

You call MY logic utterly sloppy because I challenged the fact that he "supposedly" believed sola-scriptura, but believed in the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, Original Sin, and considered all 46 books of the OT as canon.

HOW did he (one of the wisest men ever) get those beliefs FROM the Bible, if he believed in sola-scriptura?

You have created, twisting a handful of passages from the volumes of his writings, a false narrative and credited him with something that was made up 1100+ years later by the so-called "reformers."

You stated that he believed in sola scriptura, yet NO other writer for those 1100 years ever once discussed his "belief" in sola-scriptura nor did they even try to rebuke him for these "beliefs."

I'll quote him again:

"I would NOT believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He clearly believed in the authority of the Church and the infallibility of scripture.

You have failed to produce ONE quote that said that the Church or the Magisterium could err.

I feel that most of the other protestants on this thread would agree that your thinking is flawed here. They may not believe in the key tenants of the Catholic faith, but I ask them which proposition seems more logical?

Option A: a few of Augustine's quotes (used out of context) prove that he believed in sola-scriptura DISPITE the fact that he held deeply Catholic beliefs.

Option B: he didn't believe in sola-scriptura.

Most intellectually honest people would recognize that you have falsely attributed sola scriptura to one of the wisest men that ever walked the earth.

---

Your "sloppy" and really, really bad logic was your argument that since I agreed with Augustine on sola scriptura, it means I should agree with everything else he said. You aren't even getting this part right. Debating you is really fruitless. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that I really think prevents you from understanding the arguments, and why you think you can debate them when you really can't.

Read my back and forth with Sam Lowry about what Augustine said regarding the "authority of the Church". I'm not going to repeat them here.

Augustine clearly believed in sola scriptura as his writings indicate - but also believed in non-scriptural things, perhaps believing them to be in Scripture, because just as he clearly stated in his writings, HE IS NOT INFALLIBLE and is liable to err, and is liable to be corrected.

In the end, I have Augustine's direct statements affirming sola scriptura, and you have nothing where he believed that the Church had the same infallible authority. It's quite amazing that you are denying what Augustine is explicitly saying when it's right in front of you. I am fully convinced that NO evidence, no matter how undeniable, could ever change what you already decided on believing. I literally could give you a quote from a church father saying "Yes, I believe sola scriptura to be true" and you'd scramble to find a way to deny it. It really has gotten this bad with Roman Catholics. Your minds really are trapped in deception, and you need serious prayers.

---

I agree with you on this. I think that people get trapped in a way of thinking and it's veryvhard to see objectively outside that way unless you are completely homest with yourself and stick strictly to Scripture. I changed my Theological view over 10 years ago and it was extremely difficult, but I had to follow what Scripture said rather than my Church.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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

---

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

---

Let's try this differently.

You call MY logic utterly sloppy because I challenged the fact that he "supposedly" believed sola-scriptura, but believed in the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, Original Sin, and considered all 46 books of the OT as canon.

HOW did he (one of the wisest men ever) get those beliefs FROM the Bible, if he believed in sola-scriptura?

You have created, twisting a handful of passages from the volumes of his writings, a false narrative and credited him with something that was made up 1100+ years later by the so-called "reformers."

You stated that he believed in sola scriptura, yet NO other writer for those 1100 years ever once discussed his "belief" in sola-scriptura nor did they even try to rebuke him for these "beliefs."

I'll quote him again:

"I would NOT believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He clearly believed in the authority of the Church and the infallibility of scripture.

You have failed to produce ONE quote that said that the Church or the Magisterium could err.

I feel that most of the other protestants on this thread would agree that your thinking is flawed here. They may not believe in the key tenants of the Catholic faith, but I ask them which proposition seems more logical?

Option A: a few of Augustine's quotes (used out of context) prove that he believed in sola-scriptura DISPITE the fact that he held deeply Catholic beliefs.

Option B: he didn't believe in sola-scriptura.

Most intellectually honest people would recognize that you have falsely attributed sola scriptura to one of the wisest men that ever walked the earth.

---

Your "sloppy" and really, really bad logic was your argument that since I agreed with Augustine on sola scriptura, it means I should agree with everything else he said. You aren't even getting this part right. Debating you is really fruitless. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that I really think prevents you from understanding the arguments, and why you think you can debate them when you really can't.

Read my back and forth with Sam Lowry about what Augustine said regarding the "authority of the Church". I'm not going to repeat them here.

Augustine clearly believed in sola scriptura as his writings indicate - but also believed in non-scriptural things, perhaps believing them to be in Scripture, because just as he clearly stated in his writings, HE IS NOT INFALLIBLE and is liable to err, and is liable to be corrected.

In the end, I have Augustine's direct statements affirming sola scriptura, and you have nothing where he believed that the Church had the same infallible authority. It's quite amazing that you are denying what Augustine is explicitly saying when it's right in front of you. I am fully convinced that NO evidence, no matter how undeniable, could ever change what you already decided on believing. I literally could give you a quote from a church father saying "Yes, I believe sola scriptura to be true" and you'd scramble to find a way to deny it. It really has gotten this bad with Roman Catholics. Your minds really are trapped in deception, and you need serious prayers.

---

I agree with you on this. I think that people get trapped in a way of thinking and it's veryvhard to see objectively outside that way unless you are completely homest with yourself and stick strictly to Scripture. I changed my Theological view over 10 years ago and it was extremely difficult, but I had to follow what Scripture said rather than my Church.

---

I think that you were able to do that, because you weren't bound in a belief system that said your Church was infallible. This freed you to do what the Bereans did, and check your church and yourself against Scripture. That's what followers/lovers of GOD are supposed to do. Following church leaders/tradition without question is what followers of MAN do. The serious problem in Roman Catholicism is that they claim infallibility and they bind their followers to that belief upon the penalty of going to Hell if they don't. It's the same mindset as in cults. Thus, It's extremely difficult for a cult follower to even begin to question their Church. This cult mindset is the biggest impediment to seeing error, not just in Roman Catholicism, but to be fair, also in some Protestant churches.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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

---

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

---

Let's try this differently.

You call MY logic utterly sloppy because I challenged the fact that he "supposedly" believed sola-scriptura, but believed in the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, Original Sin, and considered all 46 books of the OT as canon.

HOW did he (one of the wisest men ever) get those beliefs FROM the Bible, if he believed in sola-scriptura?

You have created, twisting a handful of passages from the volumes of his writings, a false narrative and credited him with something that was made up 1100+ years later by the so-called "reformers."

You stated that he believed in sola scriptura, yet NO other writer for those 1100 years ever once discussed his "belief" in sola-scriptura nor did they even try to rebuke him for these "beliefs."

I'll quote him again:

"I would NOT believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

He clearly believed in the authority of the Church and the infallibility of scripture.

You have failed to produce ONE quote that said that the Church or the Magisterium could err.

I feel that most of the other protestants on this thread would agree that your thinking is flawed here. They may not believe in the key tenants of the Catholic faith, but I ask them which proposition seems more logical?

Option A: a few of Augustine's quotes (used out of context) prove that he believed in sola-scriptura DISPITE the fact that he held deeply Catholic beliefs.

Option B: he didn't believe in sola-scriptura.

Most intellectually honest people would recognize that you have falsely attributed sola scriptura to one of the wisest men that ever walked the earth.

---

Your "sloppy" and really, really bad logic was your argument that since I agreed with Augustine on sola scriptura, it means I should agree with everything else he said. You aren't even getting this part right. Debating you is really fruitless. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that I really think prevents you from understanding the arguments, and why you think you can debate them when you really can't.

Read my back and forth with Sam Lowry about what Augustine said regarding the "authority of the Church". I'm not going to repeat them here.

Augustine clearly believed in sola scriptura as his writings indicate - but also believed in non-scriptural things, perhaps believing them to be in Scripture, because just as he clearly stated in his writings, HE IS NOT INFALLIBLE and is liable to err, and is liable to be corrected.

In the end, I have Augustine's direct statements affirming sola scriptura, and you have nothing where he believed that the Church had the same infallible authority. It's quite amazing that you are denying what Augustine is explicitly saying when it's right in front of you. I am fully convinced that NO evidence, no matter how undeniable, could ever change what you already decided on believing. I literally could give you a quote from a church father saying "Yes, I believe sola scriptura to be true" and you'd scramble to find a way to deny it. It really has gotten this bad with Roman Catholics. Your minds really are trapped in deception, and you need serious prayers.

---

I agree with you on this. I think that people get trapped in a way of thinking and it's veryvhard to see objectively outside that way unless you are completely homest with yourself and stick strictly to Scripture. I changed my Theological view over 10 years ago and it was extremely difficult, but I had to follow what Scripture said rather than my Church.

---

I think that you were able to do that, because you weren't bound in a belief system that said your Church was infallible. This freed you to do what the Bereans did, and check your church and yourself against Scripture. That's what followers/lovers of GOD are supposed to do. Following church leaders/tradition without question is what followers of MAN do. The serious problem in Roman Catholicism is that they claim infallibility and they bind their followers to that belief upon the penalty of going to Hell if they don't. It's the same mindset as in cults. Thus, It's extremely difficult for a cult follower to even begin to question their Church. This cult mindset is the biggest impediment to seeing error, not just in Roman Catholicism, but to be fair, also in some Protestant churches.

---

I agree and sadly, it's the cults false beliefs that will doom that person's soul to hell. The Bible is the Ultimate Authority of things that are true because it's the Word if God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1:21 KJV
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

True, but even there God never says 'human tradition is as trustworthy as God's Scripture'

Give it a rest.

"the pointy-hat crew in Rome?"

I have a very low tolerance for hypocrites, and especially for church leaders who prove to focus more on money, power and personal influence than staying on mission ... 'the least of these' as Christ reminded us.

For what it's worth, there are a variety of pointy-hat hypocrites, including not only Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians and Orthodox, but of other faiths like Buddhism, Islam and other faiths.

More people have walked away from Christ because of false leaders who love money and power but not the poor and needy seeking Christ, than from atheists and non-believers.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

True, but even there God never says 'human tradition is as trustworthy as God's Scripture'

Give it a rest.

---

He never says to ignore tradition either and he certainly never says sola scriotura and he certainly says eat my body

So one has to decide, are you john 6:53 or john 6:61

Oldbear83 said:

---

"the pointy-hat crew in Rome?"

I have a very low tolerance for hypocrites, and especially for church leaders who prove to focus more on money, power and personal influence than staying on mission ... 'the least of these' as Christ reminded us.

For what it's worth, there are a variety of pointy-hat hypocrites, including not only Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians and Orthodox, but of other faiths like Buddhism, Islam and other faiths.

More people have walked away from Christ because of false leaders who love money and power but not the poor and needy seeking Christ, than from atheists and non-believers.

---

So a littany of protestant preachers are also in your "pointy hat crew from rome"?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"the pointy-hat crew in Rome?"

I have a very low tolerance for hypocrites, and especially for church leaders who prove to focus more on money, power and personal influence than staying on mission ... 'the least of these' as Christ reminded us.

For what it's worth, there are a variety of pointy-hat hypocrites, including not only Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians and Orthodox, but of other faiths like Buddhism, Islam and other faiths.

More people have walked away from Christ because of false leaders who love money and power but not the poor and needy seeking Christ, than from atheists and non-believers.

---

So a littany of protestant preachers are also in your "pointy hat crew from rome"?

---

Not from Rome, but yes there are some Protestant preachers who should get nervous when reading the parts where Jesus condemns the rich hypocrites who enjoy the best things of this world yet believe they are the most faithful to Christ.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

True, but even there God never says 'human tradition is as trustworthy as God's Scripture'

Give it a rest.

---

He never says to ignore tradition either and he certainly never says sola scriotura and he certainly says eat my body

So one has to decide, are you john 6:53 or john 6:61

---

It's not a binary question, and you are not the authority who chooses what is right.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"the pointy-hat crew in Rome?"

I have a very low tolerance for hypocrites, and especially for church leaders who prove to focus more on money, power and personal influence than staying on mission ... 'the least of these' as Christ reminded us.

For what it's worth, there are a variety of pointy-hat hypocrites, including not only Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians and Orthodox, but of other faiths like Buddhism, Islam and other faiths.

More people have walked away from Christ because of false leaders who love money and power but not the poor and needy seeking Christ, than from atheists and non-believers.

---

So a littany of protestant preachers are also in your "pointy hat crew from rome"?

---

Not from Rome, but yes there are some Protestant preachers who should get nervous when reading the parts where Jesus condemns the rich hypocrites who enjoy the best things of this world yet believe they are the most faithful to Christ.

---

No doubt. Thank you for clarifying for me

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

True, but even there God never says 'human tradition is as trustworthy as God's Scripture'

Give it a rest.

---

He never says to ignore tradition either and he certainly never says sola scriotura and he certainly says eat my body

So one has to decide, are you john 6:53 or john 6:61

---

It's not a binary question, and you are not the authority who chooses what is right.

---

Ive made abundantly clear that i wont be your judge or anyones judge. God handles all that

Id disagree those 2 are not binary but we obviously interpret many many things differently. I can only speak to the inspired words that are written.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

True, but even there God never says 'human tradition is as trustworthy as God's Scripture'

Give it a rest.

---

He never says to ignore tradition either and he certainly never says sola scriotura and he certainly says eat my body

So one has to decide, are you john 6:53 or john 6:61

---

It's not a binary question, and you are not the authority who chooses what is right.

---

Ive made abundantly clear that i wont be your judge or anyones judge. God handles all that

Id disagree those 2 are not binary but we obviously interpret many many things differently. I can only speak to the inspired words that are written.

---

Fair enough.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

Only Jesus is infallable. Priests are men. Jesus is the Mediator between God and Men, not a Priest. All a Priest can do is point you to the Bible and or pray for you.

1 Timothy 2:5 KJV
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

True, but even there God never says 'human tradition is as trustworthy as God's Scripture'

Give it a rest.

---

He never says to ignore tradition either and he certainly never says sola scriotura and he certainly says eat my body

So one has to decide, are you john 6:53 or john 6:61

---

Jesus warns against traditions


Mark 7:9 KJV
[9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13 KJV
[13] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

But it definitely says that it's all that is needed.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---

100% correct.

However the verse says all, not only.

---

True, but even there God never says 'human tradition is as trustworthy as God's Scripture'

Give it a rest.

---

He never says to ignore tradition either and he certainly never says sola scriotura and he certainly says eat my body

---

He lambasted tradition (and those who held to it) when it voided the word of God. He held scripture as the standard.

He said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." Every word from the mouth of God is Scripture.

He also said he's the "door", the "gate", the "shepherd" - I guess you believe he is literally all those too. And he also said that if they destroyed the Temple, he'd raise it up in three days (which he didn't). I guess you have to believe he lied there.

You're picking and choosing when to take Jesus literally, and when not to in order to suit your tradition.