"Here we go with the man-made labels again"
I apologizing for reciprocating in what you started. It appears that I was correct in my assumption.
"I had a teacher once who gave us a final exam and it covered topics that he had not discussed with us in class nor assigned as reading requirements. I didn't think that was fair. Maybe you do."
Another comment, no doubt, on the merit of Bible Alone.
It seems you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic position. Dogma is the defining of revelation already made, implicitly or explicitly, in Scripture and the interpretation of the Scripture (which I have named "Apostolic Tradition). We don't make stuff up, as you say. And of course, you failed to answer my question regarding WHERE exactly does it say all information about God must be written in the Bible.
If I may add to your analogy, you choose to study your textbook alone, and I will study the lecture notes, homework assignments, and the textbook, noting that there is no contradiction between them. Likely, I will have a better understanding of the subject at hand than you would.
I continue to stand by my criticism of the above author's understanding of the Trinity. There are not Three Beings, but One. And also, the Divine Nature did not suffer or become restricted on account of the Incarnation.
Can we agree on that?
Brother in Christ
I have just re-read all of my posts. I do not believe I labeled anyone. Other than using the phrases 'doctrines of man' and 'uninspired writers', which are factual descriptions and not man-made labels. If I have made any untrue assumptions, I apologize.
Another comment, no doubt, on the merit of Bible Alone.
Of course I use the Bible alone, I have never stated anything else. But when you capitalize both words as in 'Bible Alone' or use 'Sola Scriptura' you are using what should be a description as a label. As I stated, most who claim these labels don't actually practice them. I refuse to be included in those groups. I admit that could be considered a peeve of mine, but so be it.
And of course, you failed to answer my question regarding WHERE exactly does it say all information about God must be written in the Bible.
It's just simple logic. How can we know anything about God except through divine revelation. As I don't believe in post-apostolic revelation nor in apostolic succession, for me, there is no other possibility.
If I may add to your analogy, you choose to study your textbook alone, and I will study the lecture notes, homework assignments, and the textbook, noting that there is no contradiction between them. Likely, I will have a better understanding of the subject at hand than you would.
I think you missed the point. It was not about who had the better understanding but whether the teacher was fair and just for testing us on information we had not been made aware of. My point is that I am confident to stand by the Word of God as our judgement, regardless of how much 'better' another's understanding is than mine (and believe me, there are many).
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
I continue to stand by my criticism of the above author's understanding of the Trinity. There are not Three Beings, but One. And also, the Divine Nature did not suffer or become restricted on account of the Incarnation.
I also didn't like his phrasing and agree our understanding (yes - believe it or not - I am in agreement with you on this subject) is better stated. But I felt the critcism should be in that respect as opposed to making judgements on one as being a false teacher (heretic is the word I believe you used). This is why I attempted to explain what I thought he was trying to say. Not that I hold it as the best explanation, but I just thought I could see where he was coming from on this one and still am confident his understanding will not hurt him one bit in the judgement.