Quote:

---

Did you bring your own snakes, or do they hand them out at the door?

---

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't change much. Actually it doesn't change at all.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Which church did you attend this week?

---

The one church in town that remained fully open during Covid, unmasked, worshipping God as they have for a couple of thousand years without change, taking communion out of a common cup, with the priest cautioning people about the Covid shot.

---

"...worshiping God as they have for a couple thousand years without change..."

Why do you keep saying this? You've already been shown that it's completely false. Icon veneration is completely absent in Scripture and was unanimously rejected by the early church fathers. The fact that you continue to repeat this lie shows you're more interested in preserving your tribe than pursuing the truth.

historian said:

---

I believe you. I prefer to be cautious about Bible teachers or scholars I've never heard of because there is so much false or questionable doctrine out there. Actually, I was raised southern Baptist (Baylor was a natural fit for me) and take the word of God as absolute truth. I am a fan of McGee's commentaries along with those of Barclay, Boice, MacArthur, Wiersbe, & others. It depends on whichnbook of the Bible is the focus.

---

Here tonight Southern Baptist Church for 15 years and was a worship leader there. I am learning that their theology is more calvinistic. My background is actually dispensationalist which I believe is the correct interpretation of the bible. Grew up in independent fundamental Baptist churches. I had an experienced in 2001 where the Lord told me to attend a certain church and when I went there it was a dispensational church and I was discipled in the foundational doctrines of the faith. I believe that's where God wanted me because that's what he wanted me to believe. Les Feldick is also a dispensationalist. His teachings are eye-opening. I understand much more about scripture now and how it fits together.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, the times when there were people here actually trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh language - no one says a word about it; however, the charge of trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh tone only seems to arise when one's view is being seriously challenged, and the only way out of it is to redirect the fault to the other guy in order to avoid actually having to address the issue, by making their perceived faults the issue. It's a game that's played over and over in this forum. And there can't really be anything productive from this, can there? Watching people in this forum trying to manipulate the narrative in order to steer away from the really vital issues and questions and to marginalize the ones bringing it up is really sad. Truth is never served this way.

---

More irony from the chief Pharisee. lol.

---

There it is! The "Pharisee" moniker to conveniently avoid the debate because they have no argument against anything I've said.

Not surprising coming from an empty vessel who can only resort to cursing and nastiness because they simply can't debate.

You're plain evil, you can't help it. You've demonstrated that time and again. Go find someone else to curse at - only biblically sound, factual, and logical arguments will be engaged here.

---

Empty words from the resident Chief Hypocrite who does exactly all the things you've just enumerated. You should just own it. At least that would be the honest thing to do..

---

You provide absolutely ZERO to the discussion except to hurl your hatred. Your insults are your cover for your inadequacies.

Clang on, empty vessel. And thanks again for reading every single word I write.

---

Clang on in your stupidity thinking I read every single word you write. Are you a moron, a liar, or a moronic liar?

---

We're already aware of the highest level of intellect you're capable of - calling other people names. You don't have to keep demonstrating it. You're only living up to your empty vessel moniker. But clang on, if that floats your boat. We're having tense conversations here, so we might need the occasional comic relief.

---

Ah, your brand of vitriol is supported by Holy Scripture (or, so you claim) so that makes it Godly. Got it. Whatever floats your boat indeed. Pure comic genius on your part, Son of Satan.

---

You defend "Mary is THE HOLY ONE", and with hatred and vitriol.

What more needs to be said? You're evil. Calling someone "Son of Satan" is the biggest projection anyone's ever witnessed.

Clang on, empty vessel.

---

The most evil one here is you in your constant attacks on the body and bride of Christ. Res ipsa loquitur. You can count on me to drop by here from time to time to remind you of your shameful behavior. I pray you will eventually come to see the error of your ways and repent.

---

If it isn't crystal clear to you that we should never place our salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus, or believe MARY is THE ALL HOLY ONE, then you aren't in the body of Christ. Period. Simple as that.

You ARE, though, defending a certain body with all your attacks on me and what I'm saying. It's just not the body that you think.

---

Show us where Roman Catholics define salvation as being in and through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Do you seriously think anyone here holds to that? Typical straw man from you.

---

Here is more:

"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." (Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem, 9)


How's the "straw man" lookin'? Still need more? Typical ignorant comment from you.

---

Typical logic fail from you; notice the conjunction in "in and through". Nothing you quote claims salvation is both in and through. There is no doubt that the Blessed Virgin Mary may provide a pathway to her Son for some or many. You are blind and/or lying.

---

Mary is a good woman, but she can't provide anything for us. Only Jesus Christ can. The path to Jesus Christ is Faith in Him and His death and resurrection, His shed blood as the sacrifice, payment for our sins.

---

St Mary has obviously benefited millions. You are wrong.

---

Besides carrying our Lord and Savior in her womb and raising Him, what else are you referring to? Mary is not the focus, Christ is. She is merely His Mother. Good woman, good Mother, but cannot do anything for you, only her Son can.

---

Clearly St Mary has pointed the way to her Son and thereby enhanced the lives of untold millions. Additionally, no telling how many have come to faith because of her. No different from your pastor or priest.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

historian said:

---

I believe you. I prefer to be cautious about Bible teachers or scholars I've never heard of because there is so much false or questionable doctrine out there. Actually, I was raised southern Baptist (Baylor was a natural fit for me) and take the word of God as absolute truth. I am a fan of McGee's commentaries along with those of Barclay, Boice, MacArthur, Wiersbe, & others. It depends on whichnbook of the Bible is the focus.

---

Here tonight Southern Baptist Church for 15 years and was a worship leader there. I am learning that their theology is more calvinistic. My background is actually dispensationalist which I believe is the correct interpretation of the bible. Grew up in independent fundamental Baptist churches. I had an experienced in 2001 where the Lord told me to attend a certain church and when I went there it was a dispensational church and I was discipled in the foundational doctrines of the faith. I believe that's where God wanted me because that's what he wanted me to believe. Les Feldick is also a dispensationalist. His teachings are eye-opening. I understand much more about scripture now and how it fits together.

---

Dispensationalism is an unnecessary crutch.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

The RCC does not teach that St Mary is the way to salvation. Typical straw man out of you. Good thing you must have a big barn.

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

historian said:

---

I believe you. I prefer to be cautious about Bible teachers or scholars I've never heard of because there is so much false or questionable doctrine out there. Actually, I was raised southern Baptist (Baylor was a natural fit for me) and take the word of God as absolute truth. I am a fan of McGee's commentaries along with those of Barclay, Boice, MacArthur, Wiersbe, & others. It depends on whichnbook of the Bible is the focus.

---

Here tonight Southern Baptist Church for 15 years and was a worship leader there. I am learning that their theology is more calvinistic. My background is actually dispensationalist which I believe is the correct interpretation of the bible. Grew up in independent fundamental Baptist churches. I had an experienced in 2001 where the Lord told me to attend a certain church and when I went there it was a dispensational church and I was discipled in the foundational doctrines of the faith. I believe that's where God wanted me because that's what he wanted me to believe. Les Feldick is also a dispensationalist. His teachings are eye-opening. I understand much more about scripture now and how it fits together.

---

Dispensationalism is an unnecessary crutch.

---

Dispensationalism is rightly dividing scripture to where it makes sense now. Many doctrinal errors are the results of failure to divide scripture properly.

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

historian said:

---

I believe you. I prefer to be cautious about Bible teachers or scholars I've never heard of because there is so much false or questionable doctrine out there. Actually, I was raised southern Baptist (Baylor was a natural fit for me) and take the word of God as absolute truth. I am a fan of McGee's commentaries along with those of Barclay, Boice, MacArthur, Wiersbe, & others. It depends on whichnbook of the Bible is the focus.

---

Here tonight Southern Baptist Church for 15 years and was a worship leader there. I am learning that their theology is more calvinistic. My background is actually dispensationalist which I believe is the correct interpretation of the bible. Grew up in independent fundamental Baptist churches. I had an experienced in 2001 where the Lord told me to attend a certain church and when I went there it was a dispensational church and I was discipled in the foundational doctrines of the faith. I believe that's where God wanted me because that's what he wanted me to believe. Les Feldick is also a dispensationalist. His teachings are eye-opening. I understand much more about scripture now and how it fits together.

---

Dispensationalism is an unnecessary crutch.

---

And what would you call that walled palace in Rome and all that Real Estate?

A little different living standard than the OG Christians, hmm?

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

historian said:

---

I believe you. I prefer to be cautious about Bible teachers or scholars I've never heard of because there is so much false or questionable doctrine out there. Actually, I was raised southern Baptist (Baylor was a natural fit for me) and take the word of God as absolute truth. I am a fan of McGee's commentaries along with those of Barclay, Boice, MacArthur, Wiersbe, & others. It depends on whichnbook of the Bible is the focus.

---

Here tonight Southern Baptist Church for 15 years and was a worship leader there. I am learning that their theology is more calvinistic. My background is actually dispensationalist which I believe is the correct interpretation of the bible. Grew up in independent fundamental Baptist churches. I had an experienced in 2001 where the Lord told me to attend a certain church and when I went there it was a dispensational church and I was discipled in the foundational doctrines of the faith. I believe that's where God wanted me because that's what he wanted me to believe. Les Feldick is also a dispensationalist. His teachings are eye-opening. I understand much more about scripture now and how it fits together.

---

Dispensationalism is an unnecessary crutch.

---

And what would you call that walled palace in Rome and all that Real Estate?

A little different living standard than the OG Christians, hmm?

---

I call it Vatican City. What do you call it? I'm not Roman Catholic, btw.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

historian said:

---

I believe you. I prefer to be cautious about Bible teachers or scholars I've never heard of because there is so much false or questionable doctrine out there. Actually, I was raised southern Baptist (Baylor was a natural fit for me) and take the word of God as absolute truth. I am a fan of McGee's commentaries along with those of Barclay, Boice, MacArthur, Wiersbe, & others. It depends on whichnbook of the Bible is the focus.

---

Here tonight Southern Baptist Church for 15 years and was a worship leader there. I am learning that their theology is more calvinistic. My background is actually dispensationalist which I believe is the correct interpretation of the bible. Grew up in independent fundamental Baptist churches. I had an experienced in 2001 where the Lord told me to attend a certain church and when I went there it was a dispensational church and I was discipled in the foundational doctrines of the faith. I believe that's where God wanted me because that's what he wanted me to believe. Les Feldick is also a dispensationalist. His teachings are eye-opening. I understand much more about scripture now and how it fits together.

---

Dispensationalism is an unnecessary crutch.

---

Dispensationalism is rightly dividing scripture to where it makes sense now. Many doctrinal errors are the results of failure to divide scripture properly.

---

Non sequitur. That it helps you is nice. Rather like the intercession of the Saints.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

historian said:

---

I believe you. I prefer to be cautious about Bible teachers or scholars I've never heard of because there is so much false or questionable doctrine out there. Actually, I was raised southern Baptist (Baylor was a natural fit for me) and take the word of God as absolute truth. I am a fan of McGee's commentaries along with those of Barclay, Boice, MacArthur, Wiersbe, & others. It depends on whichnbook of the Bible is the focus.

---

Here tonight Southern Baptist Church for 15 years and was a worship leader there. I am learning that their theology is more calvinistic. My background is actually dispensationalist which I believe is the correct interpretation of the bible. Grew up in independent fundamental Baptist churches. I had an experienced in 2001 where the Lord told me to attend a certain church and when I went there it was a dispensational church and I was discipled in the foundational doctrines of the faith. I believe that's where God wanted me because that's what he wanted me to believe. Les Feldick is also a dispensationalist. His teachings are eye-opening. I understand much more about scripture now and how it fits together.

---

Dispensationalism is an unnecessary crutch.

---

And what would you call that walled palace in Rome and all that Real Estate?

A little different living standard than the OG Christians, hmm?

---

I call it Vatican City. What do you call it? I'm not Roman Catholic, btw.

---

I call it ostentatious.

If it's wrong when a Mega-church Protestant minister forgets how Jesus lived and why, it's just as wrong for RC's to live like Royalty here on Earth.

I'm not a Hypocrite, btw.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

---

Sadly, you still don't want to understand what idolatry is.

Nothing is wrong with making statues or images of someone or something. Nothing is inherently evil or wrong in kissing or bowing to something or someone as long the individual does NOT worship that object or sees that object as a god.

The purpose of these commandments was to prohibit the Hebrews from worshipping the false gods of Egypt that they served while in slavery for 430 years. They needed to be purged of that idolatry.

God commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent and place it on a staff for the Hebrews to be healed from the snake bites. This is where we get the medical symbol that we see on ambulances today.

God commanded them to make Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant.

God cannot command someone to do evil. He is all good and all loving. If it were evil to make images, then God would NOT be all good.

I suppose that your church doesn't have a cross or erect a nativity set during Advent.

BTW, what church do you go to and when was it founded?

Again, if you would like to discuss any of these topics individually, I am open to that.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

The RCC does not teach that St Mary is the way to salvation. Typical straw man out of you. Good thing you must have a big barn.

---

The quotes I showed you prove otherwise. All you have is your defense mechanism of denial. It only makes you look foolish.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

---

Sadly, you still don't want to understand what idolatry is.

Nothing is wrong with making statues or images of someone or something. Nothing is inherently evil or wrong in kissing or bowing to something or someone as long the individual does NOT worship that object or sees that object as a god.

---

You're only making yourself look foolish with responses like this. Making statues or images of something and bowing/praying to it and kissing it, especially IN CHURCH like you do, is expressly hated by God. It'll never cease to amaze me how you guys can convince yourself the second commandment doesn't exist.

Ultimately, what you're saying is that I can put up a statue of Baal in Church and bow and pray to it and kiss it, and that's all okay as long I don't consider Baal to be God. Do you HONESTLY think that makes it okay with God? Stupid, just SO stupid. You and curtpenn are so steeped in deception that it really hurts to read what you write.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, you are reading without understanding (again). Not everything is a council is infallible, only the parts that are declared infallible. Also, Augustine was referring to lower or regional councils. The later councils can change disciplines.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

You are committing the same sin as Luther by adding words to change the meaning. Augustine never said that ONLY Scripture was infallible.

The burden of proof is confirmed with his quote concerning that he "believed the Gospels because of the Church."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

So, the Magisterium can be equally important as the infallible scripture, but it isn't infallible also?

Without an infallible interpreter, the infallible scripture is OPEN to ANY interpretation.

{Enter Luther, et al. into the scene.}

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Augustine doesn't have to make that claim. He already affirmed the fact that the Church was the reason for his belief in the Scriptures. It's only a handful of misled protestants that use him out of context to "prove" that he believed in sola-scriptura.

Why did NO ONE correct or affirm this "belief"? I'll tell you why … It because it is NOT true.

But hey, if your false belief helps you sleep a night, then you do you, Boo Boo.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, you are reading without understanding (again). Not everything is a council is infallible, only the parts that are declared infallible. Also, Augustine was referring to lower or regional councils. The later councils can change disciplines.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

You are committing the same sin as Luther by adding words to change the meaning. Augustine never said that ONLY Scripture was infallible.

The burden of proof is confirmed with his quote concerning that he "believed the Gospels because of the Church."

---

Augustine was NOT referring to lower or regional councils. He clearly was referring to ecumenical councils. He called these councils "plenary councils of the whole Christian world."

"Augustine never said that ONLY Scripture was infallible." - once again, from Augustine: "I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant." He NEVER makes the same claim for anything else, including church councils or any magisterial teaching office. Rather, he says they are liable to err and be corrected.

Augustine believed the gospels because of the church, in that they had the authority of WITNESS, NOT INFALLIBILITY.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, once again, you are interpreting your beliefs of infallibility without reading what the Church really believes.

Only certain teachings in the councils, that are stated to be infallible are infallible.

Here is exactly what the Church teaches in the Catechism:

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

TL,DR: only matters of faith and morals when declared to be divinely revealed.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

So, the Magisterium can be equally important as the infallible scripture, but it isn't infallible also?

Without an infallible interpreter, the infallible scripture is OPEN to ANY interpretation.

{Enter Luther, et al. into the scene.}

---

Important doesn't equal infallibility. You're constantly mixing concepts.

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Augustine doesn't have to make that claim. He already affirmed the fact that the Church was the reason for his belief in the Scriptures. It's only a handful of misled protestants that use him out of context to "prove" that he believed in sola-scriptura.

Why did NO ONE correct or affirm this "belief"? I'll tell you why … It because it is NOT true.

But hey, if your false belief helps you sleep a night, then you do you, Boo Boo.

---

In the end, I have his statements, and you don't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 stated, read above, that Sola Scriputa is "that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith."

If that's not what you believe it is, please provide a better definition for this false 16th century belief.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, that's not what I'm saying. You are rushing past logic with your extreme biases in vain to force a conclusion.

• My point is HOW did Augustine believe in Sola Scriptura but still believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?
• How did he believe in the Perpetual Virginity, Mary's sinlessness, and the fact the Mother of God if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in Original Sin if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in the Deuterocanon was SCRIPTURE if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• Why do no other Church Fathers correct him or affirm him in this "belief"?
• How did he read the SAME bible as you and believe in all of these Catholic doctrines?
• Why did Jerome NOT correct him?

Be intellectually honest with yourself and ask these questions. This false belief doesn't logically make sense unless one takes these quotes out of context, which you and several other protestants have done.

Finaly, this "belief" is NOT held by respected protestant scholars like NT Wright, William Lane Craig, or Allister McGrath. Neither Luther nor Zwingli felt that Augustine held to Sola Scriptura as protestants see it. It has been construed by lesser minds to find a Church Father to hang their hat one. Sadly, the protestants can only back to the 16th before they can claim a "father."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, again, what you've done is "proof text" to try to force something that is NOT there. The extremely limited quotes you provide are taken out of context.

Remember, the Jansenists also tried to use Augustine to support their heresy as well.

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.

---

I am in agreement with you in having a low tolerance "for church leaders who prove to focus more on money, power and personal influence than staying on mission".

However, nowhere in any of the posts were either of us discussing those issues.

The comment seemed (to me) like a derogatory comment toward and an attack on the Church rather than condemnation on hypocrisy, in general.

If I misread that, then, my bad.

If you would like to discuss specific failures of the leadership in the Church, I am happy to discuss those without using Tu quoque in reciprocation.

Making snarky, generalized comments don't advance the conversation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Augustine doesn't have to make that claim. He already affirmed the fact that the Church was the reason for his belief in the Scriptures. It's only a handful of misled protestants that use him out of context to "prove" that he believed in sola-scriptura.

Why did NO ONE correct or affirm this "belief"? I'll tell you why … It because it is NOT true.

But hey, if your false belief helps you sleep a night, then you do you, Boo Boo.

---

In the end, I have his statements, and you don't.

---

"Twisted unto your destruction"

I also have the statement from him saying:

This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (On the Creed: Sermon to Catechumens)

Augustine believed in the Catholic Church as the One, True, Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, once again, you are interpreting your beliefs of infallibility without reading what the Church really believes.

Only certain teachings in the councils, that are stated to be infallible are infallible.

Here is exactly what the Church teaches in the Catechism:

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

TL,DR: only matters of faith and morals when declared to be divinely revealed.

---

You're picking and choosing what your councils are infallible at, and what they're not. You're picking and choosing what you want to be considered "divinely revealed" or not. You're still not escaping your problem.

What was your "divine revelation" for, say, the assumption of Mary? Who received it? When and where? It is completely absent in Scripture and in the early church. It's really easy to CLAIM something is divinely revealed. Every cult claims this. It's what David Koresh claimed.

" Making snarky, generalized comments don't advance the conversation."

With respect, comments that imply being the oldest denomination = superior quality get old fast.

Also, pretending that the one denomination which actually is also a city-state is not a concern is also not completely honest, intellectually.

And ignoring the pretty obvious fact that at least some Roman Catholics genuinely have gone a bit farther in their Marian devotion than Jesus would ever have recommended is concerning.

Now to be fair, the Prots have their issues. Far too many Prots looooooooooooove their lucrative 'ministries' and there are some sects so steeped in bizarre ritual and esoteric garbage that calling them Christian is beyond the pale.

But the RC denomination has at least as many flaws as any of the others.

I don't want to spend time going after individuals, I just want your side to be honest that you have your share of false Christians, including some in high rank in the past.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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 stated, read above, that Sola Scriputa is "that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith."

If that's not what you believe it is, please provide a better definition for this false 16th century belief.

---

No, you stated that is WHAT I defined it as, which you said was incorrect. That's not "providing a common understanding of what sola scriptura is". You're merely restating what I said it was.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, that's not what I'm saying. You are rushing past logic with your extreme biases in vain to force a conclusion.

• My point is HOW did Augustine believe in Sola Scriptura but still believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?
• How did he believe in the Perpetual Virginity, Mary's sinlessness, and the fact the Mother of God if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in Original Sin if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• How did he believe in the Deuterocanon was SCRIPTURE if he believed in Sola Scriptura?
• Why do no other Church Fathers correct him or affirm him in this "belief"?
• How did he read the SAME bible as you and believe in all of these Catholic doctrines?
• Why did Jerome NOT correct him?

Be intellectually honest with yourself and ask these questions. This false belief doesn't logically make sense unless one takes these quotes out of context, which you and several other protestants have done.

Finaly, this "belief" is NOT held by respected protestant scholars like NT Wright, William Lane Craig, or Allister McGrath. Neither Luther nor Zwingli felt that Augustine held to Sola Scriptura as protestants see it. It has been construed by lesser minds to find a Church Father to hang their hat one. Sadly, the protestants can only back to the 16th before they can claim a "father."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, again, what you've done is "proof text" to try to force something that is NOT there. The extremely limited quotes you provide are taken out of context.

Remember, the Jansenists also tried to use Augustine to support their heresy as well.

---

You're just not being intellectually honest with Augustine's statements. You're merely trying the "out of context" argument which isn't working. I don't know how Augustine can be more clear - "Scripture is the HIGHEST AUTHORITY WE MUST FOLLOW". You're really having to twist yourself in a pretzel to get out of it, because you just don't want to be honest.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Augustine doesn't have to make that claim. He already affirmed the fact that the Church was the reason for his belief in the Scriptures. It's only a handful of misled protestants that use him out of context to "prove" that he believed in sola-scriptura.

Why did NO ONE correct or affirm this "belief"? I'll tell you why … It because it is NOT true.

But hey, if your false belief helps you sleep a night, then you do you, Boo Boo.

---

In the end, I have his statements, and you don't.

---

"Twisted unto your destruction"

I also have the statement from him saying:

This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (On the Creed: Sermon to Catechumens)

Augustine believed in the Catholic Church as the One, True, Church.

---

And Protestantism is the return to the one true church founded by Jesus, the Church having accrued so many errors.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And ignoring the pretty obvious fact that at least some Roman Catholics genuinely have gone a bit farther in their Marian devotion than Jesus would ever have recommended is concerning.

---

"Some" Roman Catholics? Their marian idolatry and heresy is rooted in their DOGMA and practice. Their catechism calls Mary "THE ALL HOLY ONE". Roman Catholicism is NOT Christian. It's not a "denomination" of Christianity. You really are undercutting the problem.