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.
First of all, I would like to commend you for keeping this conversation friendly. I see now my use of the word heretic, though technically correct, was a bit out of place, especially given the fact that the author never had a chance to respond. We agree that one must be careful when we write or teach about the faith. Our practice of it is much simpler - we just do it - rather than trying to explain it. I work in a technical field that sometimes requires me to write technical explanations on how to do maintenance. Try to imagine the difference between using a spoon to eat corn flakes, and then try to write EXACTLY how to do it! Perhaps the idea of why dogmatic declarations take so long to get down on paper is best explained by that!
You said "...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."
I am not sure exactly what you mean here. I presumed correctly that you believe in using the Bible alone, although you don't like the label because some don't actually practice it? In corresponding with other Protestants, I agree that many claim to follow it, but don't practice it. That is why I find this an illogical idea (Bible Alone). We both agree that WHAT is Scripture came from outside the Bible, right? This, plus my statements about oral tradition that still remain in effect as binding are difficult to refute for Protestants. A clarification would be appreciated by what you mean regarding the nuances of the above paragraph.
"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."
Fair enough. I would like to present to you two things: First, the Church itself believed in apostolic succession, even seen in the Pastoral Epistles themselves. Secondly, and not trying to be a smart guy, but because one doesn't believe something doesn't make it not true, correct? I would challenge you to read what the first couple of generations believed in to get a good idea of what the Church was like, rather than being anachronistic and presuming that the first Church had distinctly Protestant beliefs (such as Bible alone). The Eucharist is a case in point. While these men were not infallible as individuals, it is hard to believe that the first generation following the Apostles could get it so wrong.
The idea of faith is that we trust someone. In this case, we are trusting the Early Church to hand down to us the Word of God. If we can trust them to give us the Scripture (recall, there are now Gnostic scriptures floating around, as seen in Divinci Code - really, who is to say that they are not the actual Scriptures - unless we don't have faith in that claim) correctly and completely, we should also trust that they worshiped, believed, and defined our faith correctly. We have faith in this because it is backed up by the promise Jesus gave to us that He would be with us always and the Spirit would be sent to us. In other words, God Himself is backing up these teachings (so we believe)
"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."
OK. There is a fine line between being ignorant of teachings and refusal to accept teachings revealed (considering Christianity is a revealed religion, it is important that we determine our ultimate source). I also believe (as does the Church) that such ignorant people who are unaware of the Church will be judged as such on what they know and how they lived their lives. That is why the Church can reach out to Muslims, for example. But when one knows the teachings of the Church and refuses to believe them, that is another story. There is the fine line.
"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)"
I humbly ask for the apology of anyone who was offended by my careless use of the word "heretic". It was hasty, and it would have been better to point out the error, without the judgement. Thank you for your correction, brother.
In Christ