[OLD REGGIE]

For you to proclaim the "true" definition of Sola Scriptura is, no offense, a bit disingenuous for there are as many definitions as there are Protestants denominations. They may be very similar, but they can be subtly different from each other. Be that as it may, in the end Sola Scriptura, in whatever form, ultimately leads to a radical individualism that has never been a part of the historic Christian faith.

You made my point. Of course I could not define the Magesterium on my own terms and then knock it down. Neither should SD define Sola Scriptura on his own terms and then knock it down, (I don't believe it was you I took issue with) yet he did, not once but time after time. One thing you must remember; if I make a statement about RC dogma, or doctrine I can be only 100% right or 100% wrong. You cannot do the same with your mythical "Protestant".

Incidentally, I printed a few definitions of the Primacy of Scripture from St. Augustine. I wouldn't quarrel with his, or many of the Early Church Fathers on this issue. I wonder why you find it necessary to disavow the teachings which don't support your position. Your transparent ploy of firing off quote after quote of other writings is wasted energy. If I declared he or they said differently it might be appropriate.

The Paramount Authority of Scripture (Sola Scriptura, if you will) was the primary part of the Christian faith until it became necessary for some to add an expanded definition of "Tradition" and "Magisterium" to support a changing position.

[dignan3]

Incidentally, I printed a few definitions of the Primacy of Scripture from St. Augustine. I wouldn't quarrel with his, or many of the Early Church Fathers on this issue. I wonder why you find it necessary to disavow the teachings which don't support your position.

I don't disavow what he said, but you have to understand the entire faith of Augustine. That understanding doesn't come from just proof-texting various passages while ignoring others which don't bode well for your theory.

But let us take a look at what you said Sola Scriptura is. Seeing that you quoted, in post 2730, this definition I will assume that you agree with it:

"Actually, calling it "Sola Scriptura" is a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God. The phrase "Sola scriptura" implies several things. First, that the Scriptures are a direct revelation from God, and as such, are His Authoritative Word. It is also a term which illustrates that the scriptures are all that is necessary for Church faith and practice today. Not only that the scriptures are sufficient, but that they also are the ultimate and final court of appeal on all doctrinal matters. Because however good and faithful a Church leader may be in giving his guidance, all the fathers, teachers, popes, and councils, are still fallible. The only infallible "source" for truth is the scriptures. Besides God Himself, Only His Words (the Scriptures alone), are infallible." -- Tony Warren

I have to be blunt with you. Except for the part in red, the above paragraph is completely foreign to Augustinian, in fact the entire early Church's, thought. Even the books which Augustine considered to be inspired Scripture was different than what you consider Scripture(that is if you don't hold to the Catholic canon)!

Your transparent ploy of firing off quote after quote of other writings is wasted energy. If I declared he or they said differently it might be appropriate.

I was trying to show that Augustine used both Tradition and the authority of the Church, and not Scripture alone, as a means to come to the correct doctrine. Did Augustine extol the virtues and authority of Scripture? Absolutely! Did he do so at the expense of the authority of Tradition and the Church, as you and Mr. Warren do? Absolutely NOT!

The Paramount Authority of Scripture (Sola Scriptura, if you will) was the primary part of the Christian faith until it became necessary for some to add an expanded definition of "Tradition" and "Magisterium" to support a changing position.

The authority of the Church and Tradition, along with the authority of Scripture, has been a part of the Christian faith since day one. Think about it for a minute, how could the early Church use the above definition of Sola Scriptura when the canon of Scripture was not even completely determined until c.400 AD?

Pray for John Paul II