The thing is that when Scripture is definite, if we gainsay any part of it, then the whole of Scripture goes into the trash heap and instead of the Reformation tradition of creating new theologies of of existing (or partial) Scripture, we wind up with the Restoration (LDS) tradition of making up new Scripture. We either have Scripture and the Deposit of the Faith including the Catechism, or we have the created things of men.
Every man is fallible; even Augustine's writings are not all considered Church teaching. There were a number that are outside the Church.
I think that the doctrine is that all scripture is profitable for teaching faith and morals. That does not mean that every teaching you can come up with from scripture is valid.
The classic case is the “Primitive Hardshell Baptist” lay minister who allegedly did a study on the italicized words in the King James version, and had several (to him) key theological truths that he derived from them. Of course the italicized words were the additions thought by the translators to be needed for their standards of grammatical corrections, and are completely missing from the Hebrew/Greek/Latin/French bibles that were used as source by the King James committee.
His theological burblings may be valid, but may not be, but his attempt to use scripture to back them is certainly without merit.
I think that the doctrine is that all scripture is profitable for teaching faith and morals. That does not mean that every teaching you can come up with from scripture is valid.
The classic case is the “Primitive Hardshell Baptist” lay minister who allegedly did a study on the italicized words in the King James version, and had several (to him) key theological truths that he derived from them. Of course the italicized words were the additions thought by the translators to be needed for their standards of grammatical corrections, and are completely missing from the Hebrew/Greek/Latin/French bibles that were used as source by the King James committee.
His theological burblings may be valid, but may not be, but his attempt to use scripture to back them is certainly without merit.