curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Non sequitur to the point which is we have all had influences in our lives that aided us on the path to salvation. Salvation doesn't occur in a vacuum.

---

Not a non seqitur at all.


While people may sometimes serve God to His pleasure, no human brings someone to Salvation.

Not even Mary.


A bit busy but will address the other items as possible.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Non sequitur to the point which is we have all had influences in our lives that aided us on the path to salvation. Salvation doesn't occur in a vacuum.

---

But you're not answering the question - HOW does Mary point people to salvation? Does she appear to them? Talk with them? Did she leave us writings? You're devoid of actual substance in this argument.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Non sequitur to the point which is we have all had influences in our lives that aided us on the path to salvation. Salvation doesn't occur in a vacuum.

---

Not a non seqitur at all.


While people may sometimes serve God to His pleasure, no human brings someone to Salvation.

Not even Mary.


A bit busy but will address the other items as possible.

---

Semantics. Most Christians are undoubtedly influenced along the way. That would be the work of the Holy Spirit through others.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

...no answer to my question?

---

FreedomBear is obviously saying that your one error is Mary.

He believes we should worship and pray to Mary.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

NOPE. IF that were the case, the Jesus would have either lied or erred in Matthew 16:18.

---

Protestantism is the return to that church Jesus is referring to there.

The church Jesus referring to there certainly did not involve bowing down and praying to images, calling Mary "The All Holy One", "God of this world", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Mediatrix", and salvation being in and through Mary.

If you truly can't see this, then you are lost.

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

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Non sequitur to the point which is we have all had influences in our lives that aided us on the path to salvation. Salvation doesn't occur in a vacuum.

---

Not a non seqitur at all.


While people may sometimes serve God to His pleasure, no human brings someone to Salvation.

Not even Mary.


A bit busy but will address the other items as possible.

---

Semantics. Most Christians are undoubtedly influenced along the way. That would be the work of the Holy Spirit through others.

---

Well, there is certainly no shortage of people eager to claim credit for what God does.

An interesting video from our Coptic friends. Since we're reading this thread, it's a given that none of us are doing so from a monastery. But there are lessons here for us.

"He [satan] will try to make me rely on anything except Christ...and if he can do it for a minute, he can do it for an hour, or if he can do it for a day he chalks up a victory to himself. But even if he has such a victory he will not win in the end he will not overcome me, for in the end my faith is in the eternal life I will share with Christ. I will die reaching for that eternal life from my position of weakness."

"The struggle of a monk is to overcome himself. No force outside a monk is as great an enemy as he is to himself. And this is the secret of all spiritual life, to overcome yourself."

"How you are fallen from heaven,
O [a]Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
'I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'

(Isaiah 14:12-17)

I hope you all have a wonderful Labor Day weekend. Mine is off to an early start.

An excellent discussion about the Trinity and the Filioque.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Evasion, and more than a smattering of dishonest arrogance.

Yes, the Roman Catholics ARE one of many denominations in the Christian Church.

Beyond that, I will say no more for now, because I perceive Pride would take the conversation to unhealthy places.

---

Once again, please cite an authentic historical reference, Google, Bing, Wiki, source that states that the Catholic Church was NOT founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33.

When was your church founded and by whom? Please cite the reference material that supports your claim.


Oldbear83 if my posts are viewed as arrogant, then I certainly apologize. That is NOT my intention. I am simply asking for clarification on your posts because they often use generalities rather than specifics. I find it hard to discuss what's obscure to me.

---

You will not get an answer to this or you will get a lie. Ive asked it many times. No response. Crickets .

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Evasion, and more than a smattering of dishonest arrogance.

Yes, the Roman Catholics ARE one of many denominations in the Christian Church.

Beyond that, I will say no more for now, because I perceive Pride would take the conversation to unhealthy places.

---

Once again, please cite an authentic historical reference, Google, Bing, Wiki, source that states that the Catholic Church was NOT founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33.

When was your church founded and by whom? Please cite the reference material that supports your claim.


Oldbear83 if my posts are viewed as arrogant, then I certainly apologize. That is NOT my intention. I am simply asking for clarification on your posts because they often use generalities rather than specifics. I find it hard to discuss what's obscure to me.

---

You will not get an answer to this or you will get a lie. Ive asked it many times. No response. Crickets .

---

You have indeed received an answer, perhaps you just don't like it .

The Church follows Christ, not Rome or wherever the denomination puts buildings, be they Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist or any of the children who love Jesus and seek Him.

IMIO claiming your group is THE Church in stead of or ahead of others who live in faith and service to Our Lord, is like those disciples who wanted to sit closest to Christ. It is not the spirit in which He wants us to live.

As for my 'reference material ', I find it ironic you ask since that question takes me to Scripture. Not what some human said in a clerical role, but what God said to us recorded in the Bible .

The Christian church was founded by Christ in the first century. There were no denominations. They weren't Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox and there was no pope. Christ was the head of the church although without His physical presence. They were Christian's. They had some unity but that wasn't always strong even at the local level. One only needs to read the book of Acts and Paul's letters to see that. The divisions that lead to the denominations came later. Historically, the Catholic church and the first pope were centuries later.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Evasion, and more than a smattering of dishonest arrogance.

Yes, the Roman Catholics ARE one of many denominations in the Christian Church.

Beyond that, I will say no more for now, because I perceive Pride would take the conversation to unhealthy places.

---

Once again, please cite an authentic historical reference, Google, Bing, Wiki, source that states that the Catholic Church was NOT founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33.

When was your church founded and by whom? Please cite the reference material that supports your claim.


Oldbear83 if my posts are viewed as arrogant, then I certainly apologize. That is NOT my intention. I am simply asking for clarification on your posts because they often use generalities rather than specifics. I find it hard to discuss what's obscure to me.

---

You will not get an answer to this or you will get a lie. Ive asked it many times. No response. Crickets .

---

You have indeed received an answer, perhaps you just don't like it .

The Church follows Christ, not Rome or wherever the denomination puts buildings, be they Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist or any of the children who love Jesus and seek Him.

IMIO claiming your group is THE Church in stead of or ahead of others who live in faith and service to Our Lord, is like those disciples who wanted to sit closest to Christ. It is not the spirit in which He wants us to live.

As for my 'reference material ', I find it ironic you ask since that question takes me to Scripture. Not what some human said in a clerical role, but what God said to us recorded in the Bible .

---

Upon this rock i will build my church (not churches) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

Straight from my Saviour's mouth

He also speaks against schism. Red word stuff.

Exactly: the bride of Christ (see Revelation) is His church. That's all believers with no other labels.

Yes, Christ was talking about Faith, as indeed He did in many other places.

Should I remind you that Jesus also called Peter Satan to his face? It's very unwise to build your case on a subjective interpretation of one verse, especially if doing so causes contradiction with other Scriptures. Or did you forget that God is not a respector of persons?

Did you forget what Christ said about the request that specific disciples be seated at His side?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Evasion, and more than a smattering of dishonest arrogance.

Yes, the Roman Catholics ARE one of many denominations in the Christian Church.

Beyond that, I will say no more for now, because I perceive Pride would take the conversation to unhealthy places.

---

Once again, please cite an authentic historical reference, Google, Bing, Wiki, source that states that the Catholic Church was NOT founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33.

When was your church founded and by whom? Please cite the reference material that supports your claim.


Oldbear83 if my posts are viewed as arrogant, then I certainly apologize. That is NOT my intention. I am simply asking for clarification on your posts because they often use generalities rather than specifics. I find it hard to discuss what's obscure to me.

---

You will not get an answer to this or you will get a lie. Ive asked it many times. No response. Crickets .

---

You have indeed received an answer, perhaps you just don't like it .

The Church follows Christ, not Rome or wherever the denomination puts buildings, be they Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist or any of the children who love Jesus and seek Him.

IMIO claiming your group is THE Church in stead of or ahead of others who live in faith and service to Our Lord, is like those disciples who wanted to sit closest to Christ. It is not the spirit in which He wants us to live.

As for my 'reference material ', I find it ironic you ask since that question takes me to Scripture. Not what some human said in a clerical role, but what God said to us recorded in the Bible .

---

Upon this rock i will build my church (not churches) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

Straight from my Saviour's mouth

---

Agreed, not "churches". Neither Rome nor Dallas may claim their part is the whole.

As for schism, Pride leads many to catastrophe. Often when they cling to lofty titles and will not admit we all are sinners in desperate need of the Physician.

I hope you all have a Happy Labor Day Weekend!

Please go with God and Jesus. All praise to Them for their blessings and gifts.

May all of you have a blessed Labor Day!

LW

gtownbear said:

---

Please go with God and Jesus. All praise to Them for their blessings and gifts.

May all of you have a blessed Labor Day!

LW

---

Thanks and God bless!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Learn what ad hominem means (and how it's spelled). If that's an ad hominem, then so is your charge of calumny.

---

ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

This is exactly what you did.

You called me a Marian idolator. That is an attack (and a falsehood).

Next you attacked my spelling error. Please note that I have NEVER commented on the spelling errors that you type so as to keep the conversation moving along. I will continue to respond WITHOUT pointing out your (or other's) spelling or grammatical errors. It brings nothing of value to the table.

---

You are STILL getting "ad hominem" wrong.

An "ad hominem" is NOT when someone calls you something that you don't like or disagree with. I called you a Marian idolator because that is what I believe (and frankly, have proven) you are. It is NO DIFFERENT than you charging me with "calumny", saying I needed to repent for that. So if you're saying that I'm doing an ad hominem, then so are you.

When you get the concept wrong, and you also misspell it, I'm gonna call them out both. Because it really shows you don't understand it.

historian said:

---

Exactly: the bride of Christ (see Revelation) is His church. That's all believers with no other labels.

---

Agreed. The Church is built on Christ and in Christ is the identity of the true believer, not on a Denomination. If your identity is in yiur Church, Denomination, Baptism, Communion, Sacraments, ect, it's not in Christ. You can't add to grace or you nullify it.

Avoid this false teaching.

...Hmmm

Realitybites said:

---

Avoid this false teaching.

---

Yes the Rapture is a real event.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're STILL getting the concept of sola scriptura WRONG. And you're still arguing a fallacy. You're just not smart enough to know it. That's the frustrating part.

Augustine could have believed in the real presence, apostolic succession, and any other "major Catholic beliefs" because he believed them to be taught in Scripture. Even if he was wrong in his interpretation (which he himself admits he is liable to be), he's still following what he believes Scripture says. Sola scriptura doesn't mean you get every interpretation right, it just means that Scripture is the only infallible authority and thus, is the "highest authority that we must follow." (Confessions, 12.19)

And EVEN IF Augustine held those beliefs because of Roman Catholic tradition that's outside of Scripture - STILL, this does NOT go against sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura does NOT mean you can NOT believe in what Church tradition tells you to believe. It does NOT mean that you can't submit yourself to any other authority besides Scripture. Sola scriptura simply means that these other beliefs from tradition and other authorities are NOT infallible like Scripture, and therefore Scripture is the "highest authority" and thus all other traditions and authorities must always be measured and corrected against infallible Scripture. Whether one is always correctly or successfully doing this is beside the point. As Augustine directly states, NOTHING he says should be taken as truth, only Scripture should be (On the Trinity, Book 3).

Augustine CLEARLY makes statements to support the view of sola scriptura. You have to be either in deep denial to not see this, or you're just not intelligent. And you don't have any statements of his to the contrary, statements that say Church authority and teaching have the same infallibility as Scripture. That's the bottom line. To make up for this huge hole, you're denying what he clearly said and trying to put words in his mouth, and you're repeatedly arguing fallacies. And you're STILL not understanding what sola scriptura really means.

---

Well, I am smart enough to know that you have taken a few passages of Augustine's works (out of complete context) and twisted if a (false) belief that he subscribed to the protestant version of Sola Scriptura.

The fact is that the "reformers" Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli didn't believe that Augustine taught today's Sola Scriptura.

I Googled "famous protestant theologians" asked if each one of the following believed that Augustine believed and taught Sola Scriptura and each one of the follow protestant theologians ALL said, "NO", he did NOT teach what today's protestants believe as Sola Scriptura.

Alister McGrath
DA Carson
Gordon Fee
Balthasar Hubmaier
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Jonathan Edwards
Karl Barth
Herman Bavinck
Lesslie Newbigin
Harvey Cox Jr
Stanley Hauerwas
John Milbank
Thomas R. Schreiner
Jonathan Leeman
Abraham Kuyper
Reinhold Niebuhr
J. Gresham Machen
Cornelius Van Til
Elisabeth Elliot

As a matter of fact, when I asked Google if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, the response was the following:

No, Augustine did not believe in sola scriptura in the Protestant sense. While he held Scripture as the sole source of infallible truth and placed it above other human writings, he also affirmed the authoritative role of the Catholic Church's tradition and teachings. For Augustine, Scripture and the Church's tradition worked together, with the Church's authority being necessary to interpret Scripture and guide believers.

If you want to continue to believe that Augustine taught Sola Scriptura in light of the fact that CREDIBLE protestant theologians didn't even believe this, then that's your prerogative.

Quite frankly, I feel that is a fringe view from a few "internet theologians" with very little credibility.

But for the sake of the argument, let's say that he DID whole-hog believe in Sola Scriptura as today's protestants do. OK, so what? The Church does not subscribe to a "doctrine" that ONE Church Father believed.

But in actuality, he DIDN'T believe in what protestant today call Sola Scriptura. It is a futile attempt by some to try to connect to a Church Father by cherry-picking a handful of passages out of context without regard to his full body of works.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

NOPE. IF that were the case, the Jesus would have either lied or erred in Matthew 16:18.

---

Protestantism is the return to that church Jesus is referring to there.

The church Jesus referring to there certainly did not involve bowing down and praying to images, calling Mary "The All Holy One", "God of this world", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Mediatrix", and salvation being in and through Mary.

If you truly can't see this, then you are lost.

---

A "return" means that the Church failed or ended. It did not. That would have made Jesus wrong if it was lost.

The Church that Jesus started is still in existence today and the leader is now Pope Leo.

I'm certainly not lost. Nor I'm I embarrassed to mention my church; St. Jerome's in Waco. You are welcome to join me for mass. I will explain everything to you.

BTW, who is the leader of your church and when did it start? Please cite historical proof. How can I visit this church this Sunday?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are STILL getting "ad hominem" wrong.

An "ad hominem" is NOT when someone calls you something that you don't like or disagree with. I called you a Marian idolator because that is what I believe (and frankly, have proven) you are. It is NO DIFFERENT than you charging me with "calumny", saying I needed to repent for that. So if you're saying that I'm doing an ad hominem, then so are you.

When you get the concept wrong, and you also misspell it, I'm gonna call them out both. Because it really shows you don't understand it.

---

I provided a standard definition of an ad hominem" it is an attack on a person rather than their position.

You called me a "Marian idolator", which is NOT true. I don't worship Mary as a God or deity. That was an attack on me, not my position.

I accused you of "calumny" - the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.

It is a LIE to say that I worship Mary. You don't know me or what's in my heart. You can't make that judgement.

Finally, if it makes you feel better to point out my spelling or grammatical errors, well, you do you. I will NOT do so in return. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Having said this, feel free to respond, if you wish. I am done with this specific conversation. I will not return comment on it. It is not yielding anything fruitful.

Today, Wednesday September 3rd, the Family of God remembers Hieromartyr Anthimus, Bishop of Nicomedia and those who suffered with him.

"The Hieromartyr Anthimus, Bishop of Nicomedia, and those with him suffered during the persecution against Christians under the emperors Diocletian (284-305) and Maximian (305-311). The persecution became particularly intense after a fire at the imperial court at Nicomedia. The pagans accused the Christians of setting the fire and reacted against them with terrible ferocity.

In Nicomedia alone, on the day of the Nativity of Christ, as many as twenty thousand Christians were burned inside a church. However, this monstrous inhumanity did not frighten the Christians, who firmly confessed their faith and endured martyrdom for Christ.

Saints Dorotheus, Mardonius, Migdonius, Peter, Indes and Gorgonius died during this period. One of them was beheaded by the sword, others perished by burning, or being buried alive, or by drowning in the sea. The soldier Zeno boldly denounced the emperor Maximian, for which he was stoned, and then beheaded.

Then the holy Virgin Martyr Domna, a former pagan priestess, perished at the hands of the pagans, and also Saint Euthymius, because of their concern that the bodies of the holy martyrs should be buried. Bishop Anthimus, who headed the Church of Nicomedia, hid himself in a village not far from Nicomedia at the request of his flock. From there he sent letters to the Christians, urging them to cleave firmly to the holy Faith and not to fear tortures.

One of his letters, sent with Deacon Theophilus, was intercepted and given to the emperor Maximian. Theophilus was interrogated and died under torture, without revealing to his torturers the whereabouts of Bishop Anthimus. After a while Maximian managed to learn where Saint Anthimus was, and sent a detachment of soldiers after him.

The bishop met them along the way, but the soldiers did not recognize the saint. He invited them to join him and provided a meal, after which he revealed that he was the one they sought. The soldiers did not know what to do. They wanted to leave him and tell the emperor that they had not found him. Bishop Anthimus was not one to tolerate a lie, and so he would not consent to this.

The soldiers came to believe in Christ and received holy Baptism. The saint ordered them to carry out the emperor's instructions. When Bishop Anthimus was brought before the emperor, the emperor ordered that the instruments of execution be brought out and placed before him. "Do you think, emperor, to frighten me with these tools of execution?" asked the saint. "No indeed, you cannot frighten one who wishes to die for Christ! Execution is frightening only for the cowardly, for whom the present life is most precious." The emperor then directed that the saint be fiercely tortured and beheaded by the sword.

Bishop Anthimus joyfully glorified God with his last breath, and received the crown of martyrdom."

Saint Anthimus, pray for us.

Well CB, it appears that you presented a sound, reasoned response to each point. I am curious as to BtD's response and tone. Having observed this give and take for an extended period it would appear that we will get one. I understand why you sometimes slip a notch and slap back at him due to the level of his demeaning comments. It can be difficult to respect someone who seems to make it a point to disrespect just about anyone who doesn't agree with his views, and appears too often to relish attacking the individual with such contempt and vitriol. Let's hope for a more balanced attitude as Paul encourages.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're STILL getting the concept of sola scriptura WRONG. And you're still arguing a fallacy. You're just not smart enough to know it. That's the frustrating part.

Augustine could have believed in the real presence, apostolic succession, and any other "major Catholic beliefs" because he believed them to be taught in Scripture. Even if he was wrong in his interpretation (which he himself admits he is liable to be), he's still following what he believes Scripture says. Sola scriptura doesn't mean you get every interpretation right, it just means that Scripture is the only infallible authority and thus, is the "highest authority that we must follow." (Confessions, 12.19)

And EVEN IF Augustine held those beliefs because of Roman Catholic tradition that's outside of Scripture - STILL, this does NOT go against sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura does NOT mean you can NOT believe in what Church tradition tells you to believe. It does NOT mean that you can't submit yourself to any other authority besides Scripture. Sola scriptura simply means that these other beliefs from tradition and other authorities are NOT infallible like Scripture, and therefore Scripture is the "highest authority" and thus all other traditions and authorities must always be measured and corrected against infallible Scripture. Whether one is always correctly or successfully doing this is beside the point. As Augustine directly states, NOTHING he says should be taken as truth, only Scripture should be (On the Trinity, Book 3).

Augustine CLEARLY makes statements to support the view of sola scriptura. You have to be either in deep denial to not see this, or you're just not intelligent. And you don't have any statements of his to the contrary, statements that say Church authority and teaching have the same infallibility as Scripture. That's the bottom line. To make up for this huge hole, you're denying what he clearly said and trying to put words in his mouth, and you're repeatedly arguing fallacies. And you're STILL not understanding what sola scriptura really means.

---

Well, I am smart enough to know that you have taken a few passages of Augustine's works (out of complete context) and twisted if a (false) belief that he subscribed to the protestant version of Sola Scriptura.

The fact is that the "reformers" Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli didn't believe that Augustine taught today's Sola Scriptura.

I Googled "famous protestant theologians" asked if each one of the following believed that Augustine believed and taught Sola Scriptura and each one of the follow protestant theologians ALL said, "NO", he did NOT teach what today's protestants believe as Sola Scriptura.

Alister McGrath
DA Carson
Gordon Fee
Balthasar Hubmaier
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Jonathan Edwards
Karl Barth
Herman Bavinck
Lesslie Newbigin
Harvey Cox Jr
Stanley Hauerwas
John Milbank
Thomas R. Schreiner
Jonathan Leeman
Abraham Kuyper
Reinhold Niebuhr
J. Gresham Machen
Cornelius Van Til
Elisabeth Elliot

As a matter of fact, when I asked Google if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, the response was the following:

No, Augustine did not believe in sola scriptura in the Protestant sense. While he held Scripture as the sole source of infallible truth and placed it above other human writings, he also affirmed the authoritative role of the Catholic Church's tradition and teachings. For Augustine, Scripture and the Church's tradition worked together, with the Church's authority being necessary to interpret Scripture and guide believers.

If you want to continue to believe that Augustine taught Sola Scriptura in light of the fact that CREDIBLE protestant theologians didn't even believe this, then that's your prerogative.

Quite frankly, I feel that is a fringe view from a few "internet theologians" with very little credibility.

But for the sake of the argument, let's say that he DID whole-hog believe in Sola Scriptura as today's protestants do. OK, so what? The Church does not subscribe to a "doctrine" that ONE Church Father believed.

But in actuality, he DIDN'T believe in what protestant today call Sola Scriptura. It is a futile attempt by some to try to connect to a Church Father by cherry-picking a handful of passages out of context without regard to his full body of works.

---

You are relying on Google AI to teach you religious truths. Not a good idea. It's as bad a decision as your following the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that you trust Google AI speaks volumes. You are trusting man's creation in its own image. You are trusting an evil source.

Google gets the concept of sola scriptura wrong. READ how Google explained it's answer, and see if you can spot the error. For someone who continues to get the concept wrong him/herself, I'm not surprised you didn't catch it.

I will bet that your questions to Google regarding all the scholars, and their view as to what Augustine taught about sola scriptura, are all based on the same WRONG definition of sola scriptura.

But regardless, not of that matters. Again, here's the bottom line - I'm QUOTING you Augustine's actual words. You are trying to argue around them. When Augustine literally states that he believes Scripture is the only inerrant source that is the "highest authority we should follow" and that the church is liable to err - this is the definition of sola scriptura. Your only argument is to claim that I'm "twisting his words". But I've given his quotes verbatim, and I think it's clear to everyone what he's saying, and that there's not twisting of words whatsoever. They can see it for themselves. Your argument is just an attempt to get around it. You aren't giving ANYTHING from Augustine's own words that he believed the Church was also infallible, like Scripture. I've challenged you guys repeatedly for this, and still, NOTHING. You're arguing about regarding his entire body of works, and yet within them you can't provide any actual evidence for your point, except for what "Google" told you.

So your argument against it is entirely empty.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

NOPE. IF that were the case, the Jesus would have either lied or erred in Matthew 16:18.

---

Protestantism is the return to that church Jesus is referring to there.

The church Jesus referring to there certainly did not involve bowing down and praying to images, calling Mary "The All Holy One", "God of this world", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Mediatrix", and salvation being in and through Mary.

If you truly can't see this, then you are lost.

---

A "return" means that the Church failed or ended. It did not. That would have made Jesus wrong if it was lost.

The Church that Jesus started is still in existence today and the leader is now Pope Leo.

I'm certainly not lost. Nor I'm I embarrassed to mention my church; St. Jerome's in Waco. You are welcome to join me for mass. I will explain everything to you.

BTW, who is the leader of your church and when did it start? Please cite historical proof. How can I visit this church this Sunday?

---

One of the main problems in your thinking, is the idea that just because Jesus' church erred, it means the church "ended" or was "lost". If this were the case, then the church ended as soon as it began, when the first churches had major errors that had to be corrected. See Paul's ministry and Jesus' letters to the seven churches of Revelation. The true church responds to the correction, and returns to the original faith. That's what the Protestant movement was for. The Roman Catholic Church CLEARLY strayed from the original faith. That's obvious to everyone here, except for people who are brainwashed within the Roman Catholic system.

The evidence that the church still survives today is that there are still true believers in Jesus today. The church was NEVER defeated by Satan. Satan does, however, mislead many churches, the Roman Catholic Church being the major one. But there has been, and always will be, true believers in Jesus until Jesus returns. The "church" is the entire body of believers in Jesus. It isn't a religious organization.

I do not care to mention my denomination or my church, because I do not want to make this discussion about denominations, but rather what SCRIPTURE, history, logic, and reason all reveal. Regardless of what church someone belongs to - if they follow SCRIPTURE, then that's the "historical proof" that they are following the original faith, and thus are part of Jesus' church, Jesus being the leader of that church. When you stray from scripture, then that's proof that Jesus is no longer the leader. That's the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who can't see that the Roman Catholic belief and practice regarding Mary, the Mass, purgatory, sacraments, etc are not supported by Scripture, are too steeped in deception to see it. The clearest evidence of this, is when you're shown the OBVIOUS and egregious idolatry and heresy regarding Mary, and you don't bat an eye. That is a clear indicator that you are indeed lost.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are STILL getting "ad hominem" wrong.

An "ad hominem" is NOT when someone calls you something that you don't like or disagree with. I called you a Marian idolator because that is what I believe (and frankly, have proven) you are. It is NO DIFFERENT than you charging me with "calumny", saying I needed to repent for that. So if you're saying that I'm doing an ad hominem, then so are you.

When you get the concept wrong, and you also misspell it, I'm gonna call them out both. Because it really shows you don't understand it.

---

I provided a standard definition of an ad hominem" it is an attack on a person rather than their position.

You called me a "Marian idolator", which is NOT true. I don't worship Mary as a God or deity. That was an attack on me, not my position.

I accused you of "calumny" - the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.

It is a LIE to say that I worship Mary. You don't know me or what's in my heart. You can't make that judgement.

Finally, if it makes you feel better to point out my spelling or grammatical errors, well, you do you. I will NOT do so in return. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Having said this, feel free to respond, if you wish. I am done with this specific conversation. I will not return comment on it. It is not yielding anything fruitful.

---

And "ad hominem" is when you attack the person RATHER than their position. You weren't arguing a position. You accused me of calumny, and I pointed out your hypocrisy. That's not an ad hominem. You still don't understand it.

You can deny that you worship Mary and that you're committing idolatry all you want. It doesn't mean you're not doing it. I think I've clearly shown that you do - you bow and pray to images of a human being, and you seek her intercession for your salvation. You sing hymns to her in church. You hold multiple festivals for her. You endorse prayers which call her "sovereign", "God of this world", "ruler of my house", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God" and which ask her to "grant that you may attain salvation" and that you "place your salvation in her hands". You also endorse your Church's statements that Mary is "THE ALL HOLY ONE", "Mary is the road we must travel to get to God", and "we obtain ALL SALVATION through Mary".

Here's the obvious truth - anyone who can't see the problem in all that, is clearly not of the Holy Spirit, and therefore is not of Jesus/God.

BUDOS said:

---

Well CB, it appears that you presented a sound, reasoned response to each point. I am curious as to BtD's response and tone. Having observed this give and take for an extended period it would appear that we will get one. I understand why you sometimes slip a notch and slap back at him due to the level of his demeaning comments. It can be difficult to respect someone who seems to make it a point to disrespect just about anyone who doesn't agree with his views, and appears too often to relish attacking the individual with such contempt and vitriol. Let's hope for a more balanced attitude as Paul encourages.

---

If you actually think consulting Google AI is a sound argument against the actual, clear words of Augustine and thinking for yourself is a "sound argument", then it's obvious you have the same problem with your thinking and with discernment.

It never ceases to amaze me, how the defenders of clear idolatry and heresy here in this thread like yourself continue to fail to offer any kind of argument except to attack my character, "tone", etc. Every single time. You've avoided questions and arguments only to make your attacks. The apostle Paul did NOT have a "balanced" attitude. He said to the Galatians - "O, foolish Galatians, Who has bewitched you??" and did not compromise or ONE BIT about the truth of the gospel. He calls those who promote false beliefs ACCURSED. How is that anything different than what I'm doing here??

I don't trust anything you say. There's something really "off" about you.