Augustine Quote Used By An Anti-catholic

[ironmonk]

From: PottersClay (Original Message)Sent: 12/18/2001 11:05 PM

Shalom;

well lets hear your answer

Sola Scriptura can be defined as the Protestant principle that scripture alone is a sufficient teacher to gain salvation, and it, scripture, is the one ruler or standard by which any doctrine of the church should be judged. If a doctrine cannot be found within the covers of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, then it can be safely rejected, your salvation does not depend on it. Some Catholic apologists will claim that this Sola Scriptura doctrine did not surface until the reformation of the 16th century and Martin Luther. Note the following:

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

So just who authored this affirmation of the principle of the sufficiency and paramount authority of the scriptures known as Sola Scriptura? Was is Martin Luther? Perhaps another Johnny-come-lately disgruntled 16th century reformer? No, the author is from the 5th century, 1100 years prior to the Reformation! The author is none other than St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3, online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at Wheaton College.

Here is the same passage with a slightly different translation:

This mediator [Jesus Christ], first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn.

So scripture, according to St. Augustine, is the supreme authority and reveals all truths we should know. That sounds about as good as any Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura. This version bears the Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat, and Imprimi Potest of the Catholic Church and is found in City of God published in 1958 by Image Books, Doubleday, Copyright 1958 by Fathers of the Church, Inc., edited by Vernon J. Bourke, ISBN 0-385-02910-1, page 207.

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 ...

Source: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book II, Chap. 9, online at the University of Pennsylvania.

Shalom

protestant

a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

--------------------------------------------

The post above is from pot... This guy would post the same argument after about 3 months would go by when he could not answer the first rebuttal... Major anti-Catholic.

Here is my reply to the above... Please note, this was after dealing with him for months (hence the 'boo yah').

------------------

From: Iron Monk Sent: 12/19/2001 4:11 AM

Thank You! It's wonderful that you quote a Catholic... but I've got a few other things for you that St. Augustine wrote......

You've taken one small part of a vast amount of writings... You ignore...

"Accordingly, as in the case of visible objects which we have not seen, we trust those who have, (and likewise with all sensible objects,) so in the case of things which are perceived 4 by the mind and spirit, i.e., which are remote from our own interior sense, it behoves us to trust those who have seen them set in that incorporeal light, or abidingly contemplate them. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-02/Augus...ne/cog/t104.htm

He held converse on the earth forty days with His disciples, and in their sight ascended into heaven, and after ten days sent the promised Holy Spirit. It was given as the chief and most necessary sign of His coming on those who had believed, that every one of them spoke in the tongues of all nations; thus signifying that the unity of the Catholic Church would embrace all nations, and would in like manner speak in all tongues.

.....

CHAP. 51.--THAT THE CATHOLIC FAITH MAY BE CONFIRMED EVEN BY THE DISSENSIONS OF THE HERETICS.

....For even thus they profit by their wickedness those true Catholic members of Christ, since God makes a good use even of the wicked, and all things work together for good to them that love Him.(1) For all the enemies of the Church, whatever error blinds or malice depraves them......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL. [CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397.

CHAP. 4.--PROOFS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

5. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, deed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion. in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--" Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.; Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I donor believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;--Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichaeus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichaeus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichaeus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I get a 'boo yah'?! j/k

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

iron monk

-------------------------------

The full thread can be found at:

http://groups.msn.com/MountBiblicalSense/p...ket=en-us&pps=k

There's much more... but pot didn't post on the board for a while after that one.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

Edited October 19, 2003 by ironmonk

[Norseman82]

But by that very definition, if we are to yield to the supreme authority of the bible, then obeying the bible means obeying the pope and bishops in matters of faith and morals, who are the successors to the apostles who were given the authority to bind and loose and make judgements like in Acts 15, righhhht????

[ironmonk]

But by that very definition, if we are to yield to the supreme authority of the bible, then obeying the bible means obeying the pope and bishops in matters of faith and morals, who are the successors to the apostles who were given the authority to bind and loose and make judgements like in Acts 15, righhhht????

Very good point!!

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Anna]

But by that very definition, if we are to yield to the supreme authority of the bible, then obeying the bible means obeying the pope and bishops in matters of faith and morals, who are the successors to the apostles who were given the authority to bind and loose and make judgements like in Acts 15, righhhht????

Tru dat, Norseman.

You'll not find St. Augustine saying that the Book is above those who wrote or interpret it (Apostles & Popes, respectively), whose authority is established in the Book Itself!

None of us would say that the Bible isn't paramount or supreme, when properly interpretted by the authorities established therein. :)

[M.SIGGA]

next time you send a reply pic this pic on it: