I'm no longer a Calvinist.

[chestertonrules]

In that statement, the word "through" is the only word that applies to the church. The church is listed--not even first, as one of many modes of the transmission of truth.

What came through the Church?

The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church.

 

[racer]

What came through the Church?

The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church.

So? How does this hint at or imply that the Church has authority over Scripture?

No one denies the teaching authority of the church, nor the fact the church is charged with preserving and teaching the truth.

However, God being the wise Lord He is, provided to us Scripture so that the church could be kept honest and in check. Also, Scripture also allows us to verify that what the church teaches us is truth. It confirms what the church teaches.

This is for those who go to church hear the preacher say something that to them sounds questionable. How do they confirm it as truth? They check against the Bible.

This is how we can identify false teachers.

 

[racer]

What came through the Church?

The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church.

Good question. How do you and I know what came through the church? If we only know what it was based upon simply what the Church "said" we really wouldn't know would we? We only know what is the truth because "Scripture was preserved and passed down over the centuries. If the church had not preserved these teachings in writing, they would have vanished and who know what watered down or gussied up version of the Gospel we'd have.

 

[chestertonrules]

So? How does this hint at or imply that the Church has authority over Scripture?

No one denies the teaching authority of the church, nor the fact the church is charged with preserving and teaching the truth. .

Exactly.

That's all the Church teaches.

The Truth is preserved and proclaimed by scripture, sacred tradition, and the magisterium.

Without all three the truth will be lost.

We can see this happening in protestantism which ignores the magisterium completely and has a low opinion of sacred tradition. That's why you see so many protestant churches who believe in sola scripture teaching contradictory doctrines.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Exactly.

That's all the Church teaches.

The Truth is preserved and proclaimed by scripture, sacred tradition, and the magisterium.

Without all three the truth will be lost.

We can see this happening in protestantism which ignores the magisterium completely and has a low opinion of sacred tradition. That's why you see so many protestant churches who believe in sola scripture teaching contradictory doctrines.

Catholics believe the Truth is preserved and proclaimed by the Magisterium. Scripture and sacred tradition are secondary to the Magesterium.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have a Magesterium, but believe the Truth is preserved and proclaimed by Sacred Tradition with the scripture being secondary to it.

Protestants have neither a Magesterium nor Sacred Tradition and believe the Truth is preserved and proclaimed by Scripture alone.

None of these groups have more than one primary source for Truth.

 

[Tzaousios]

You're going to have to provide samples of where Augustine disagrees with Catholic teaching. It seems to me that you believe the Catholic Church to teach something on Predestination or grace which She does not. If that's correct, well, Luther had the same problem. If you put Augustine's teaching side by side the pertinent Catholic document, then we have something to work with.

Well, considering Augustine's body of work is massive, even the works after 395, what do you want to start with? I am not sure if the OP would like us to continue it here though.

And to correct you, the Church doesn't disagree with Augustine's position on the efficacy of baptism.

On the baptism of infants? If not, what was the distinction you were drawing?

 

[chestertonrules]

Catholics believe the Truth is preserved and proclaimed by the Magisterium. Scripture and sacred tradition are secondary to the Magesterium.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have a Magesterium, but believe the Truth is preserved and proclaimed by Sacred Tradition with the scripture being secondary to it.

That is inaccurate. What would the magisterium interpret without scripture and sacred tradition? They are the three legs of the stool that hold up the Truth.

Protestants have neither a Magesterium nor Sacred Tradition and believe the Truth is preserved and proclaimed by Scripture alone.

Then why do protestants hold so many contradiction positions based on scripture? It obviously is not working.

None of these groups have more than one primary source for Truth

Then why do they disagree with each other?

 

[MrPolo]

That is inaccurate. What would the magisterium interpret without scripture and sacred tradition?

Indeed.

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on... (Dei Verbum, 10b)​

 

[MrPolo]

On the baptism of infants? If not, what was the distinction you were drawing?

Augustine did not challenge the efficacy of baptism, as you had worded it. He agrees with the Church there. What he posited was a likelihood that unbaptized infants go to hell. The Church has not come out and disagreed with Augustine on the fate of unbaptized infants, but expresses much more optimism than he did. Officially the Church does not have a "definite" position.

 

[MrPolo]

Well, considering Augustine's body of work is massive, even the works after 395, what do you want to start with? I am not sure if the OP would like us to continue it here though.

On this, I cannot read your mind as to what issue on which you believe Augustine to contradict a teaching of Catholicism by putting each's teaching side-by-side, so I will be unable to give you an answer.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is inaccurate. What would the magisterium interpret without scripture and sacred tradition? They are the three legs of the stool that hold up the Truth.

No, the magisterium does not limit itself to scripture and sacred tradition only. If they did then they would not be in disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox. The magisterium is the primary source of Truth in the Catholic Church. They are informed by scripture and sacred tradition, but are not necessarily bound by them or by other interpretations of them.

Then why do protestants hold so many contradiction positions based on scripture? It obviously is not working.

It seems to be working just fine IMO. The growth of the various Protestant churches continues and, although their squabbles are much more public than those within the confines of the Vatican, they are thriving and have no signs of disappearing. It reminds me of the American Experiment which detractors in the late eighteenth century were convinced was doomed to failure. Imagine how dreadful democracy and liberty can be! It could only lead to utter chaos and the ruin of a nation (so they said). Democracy in America is doing just fine, thank you.

Then why do they disagree with each other?

They disagree with each other because each uses a different primary source for Truth. The Catholic Church has its Magesterium, The Orthodox have Sacred Tradition, and Protestants have Scripture. Although similar, these three are not the same, hence the disagreements.

 

[marlowe007]

The Calvinists may be more 'Augustinian' than the Catholics, since in addition to their greater emphasis on substitutionary atonement they hold to total depravity and the doctrine of irresistible grace, the development of which shows strong Augustinian influence. Still, the Augustine of both Protestant and Catholic lore is watered down. Nobody holds to some of his distinctives. The closest thing to true Augustinians might be the Jansenites, as in Blaise Pascal and Father Feeney.

 

[chestertonrules]

No, the magisterium does not limit itself to scripture and sacred tradition only. If they did then they would not be in disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox. The magisterium is the primary source of Truth in the Catholic Church. They are informed by scripture and sacred tradition, but are not necessarily bound by them or by other interpretations of them.

The magisterium would never and has never contradicted scripture or sacred tradition. They may have drawn a different conclusion that you, but that is not the same thing.

It seems to be working just fine IMO. The growth of the various Protestant churches continues and, although their squabbles are much more public than those within the confines of the Vatican, they are thriving and have no signs of disappearing. It reminds me of the American Experiment which detractors in the late eighteenth century were convinced was doomed to failure. Imagine how dreadful democracy and liberty can be! It could only lead to utter chaos and the ruin of a nation (so they said). Democracy in America is doing just fine, thank you.

Mainline protestant churches are in rapid decline, while the Catholic Church continues to grow.

The growing protestant churches are outside the historical reformation churches.

They disagree with each other because each uses a different primary source for Truth. The Catholic Church has its Magesterium, The Orthodox have Sacred Tradition, and Protestants have Scripture. Although similar, these three are not the same, hence the disagreements.

[/quote]

Grossly inaccurate.

 

[chestertonrules]

The closest thing to true Augustinians might be the Jansenites, as in Blaise Pascal and Father Feeney.

That is probably true, since they were Catholics.(I'm not familiar with Father Feeney, so I am just assuming he is Catholic)

 

[chestertonrules]

Anyhow, Chester, according to your citation by Augustine and your own assertions, we know that since he based what he believed and taught about Scripture on what the "authority" of the Church of his time taught, we know that the church taught this:

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
​

Yes, that is the position of the Church today.

Scripture is more authoritative than other early Christian writings.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, that is the position of the Church today.

Scripture is more authoritative than other early Christian writings.

My bro Tyndale would also agree

http://www.christianforums.com/t1179374-24/#post11079311
Sola Scritura and William Tyndale

 

[LinkH]

I'm an Augustinian.


Note how I changed my label without changing any of my doctrinal positions.

So do you believe it is possible to lose your calvation?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So do you believe it is possible to lose your calvation?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb

No, the magisterium does not limit itself to scripture and sacred tradition only. If they did then they would not be in disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox. The magisterium is the primary source of Truth in the Catholic Church. They are informed by scripture and sacred tradition, but are not necessarily bound by them or by other interpretations of them.
​

The magisterium would never and has never contradicted scripture or sacred tradition. They may have drawn a different conclusion that you, but that is not the same thing.

Where did I make that statement? What I said was that if the magesterium did limit itself to scripture and sacred tradition only they would not be in disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox. What I am saying is that the magesterium of the Catholic Church has come to different beliefs than the Eastern Orthodox who rely only on sacred tradition and scripture. Do you not agree with this? If it is true then there must be extraneous sources other than sacred tradition and scripture informing the magesterium.

Mainline protestant churches are in rapid decline, while the Catholic Church continues to grow.

Please define "mainline protestant churches" for us. I now see that you have divided Protestantism into two camps - mainline and ?. Please explain to us where the Catholic Church is growing and how this offsets its hemorraging of members in the United States.

The growing protestant churches are outside the historical reformation churches.

Are "historical reformation churches" synonymous with "mainline" churches? If not, please define the term for us. I am pleased that you admit that (some) Protestant churches are growing and I submit that, as a whole, protestant churches are growing and not in decline.

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb
"They disagree with each other because each uses a different primary source for Truth. The Catholic Church has its Magesterium, The Orthodox have Sacred Tradition, and Protestants have Scripture. Although similar, these three are not the same, hence the disagreements."

Grossly inaccurate.

Please tell us what is "grossly inaccurate" about my statement. Is it

a. They are really all in agreement with each other?
b. They all use the same primary source for Truth?
c. The Magesterium, sacred tradition, and scripture are actually all the same entity (thus turning the three-legged stool of Catholicism into a one-legged stool)?

 

[MrPolo]

That is probably true, since they were Catholics.(I'm not familiar with Father Feeney, so I am just assuming he is Catholic)

Father Feeney was Catholic and was excommunicated in 1953 for teaching contrary to the Church's understanding of "outside the Church there is no salvation." Father Feeney taught that in order to be a part of the Church, one had to be a member "formally." A pertinent letter in 1949, from Pope Pius XII, addressed Father Feeney's error, and stated, "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing." Ironically, Father Feeney held the same understandings many Protestants do today regarding the phrase "outside the Church there is no salvation," but that understanding has long since been clarified, even since the time of Augustine in fact...