ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Bright Raven]

Baptismal Regeneration IS a "weightier issue of salvation." You disagree with Lutherans concerning the doctrine of salvation. Which of you, therefore, lacks the Holy Spirit?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Sorry Crux, It may be a weighter issue to you and my Lutheran brothers but it is not to me. Under the Gospel taught by Peter and the 12 to the Jews, baptism seems to be a requirement for salvation. However under the Gospel taught by Paul to the Body of Christ it is clear that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. If it is a requirement why would Jesus make such an outlandish statement to the thief on the cross, "today you shall be with me in paradise."

 

[Cruciform]

Sorry Crux, It may be a weighter issue to you and my Lutheran brothers but it is not to me.

Here you're simply expressing your rejection of Baptismal Regeneration, which we've already established. The simple fact is that you are in categorical conflict with your Lutheran brothers concerning the central Christian doctrine of salvation. Please answer the question instead of dodging it as you have so far: Which of you is lacking the Holy Spirit?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

Here you're simply expressing your rejection of Baptismal Regeneration, which we've already established. The simple fact is that you are in categorical conflict with your Lutheran brothers concerning the central Christian doctrine of salvation. Please answer the question instead of dodging it as you have so far: Which of you is lacking the Holy Spirit?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Neither, both are saved and have the Spirit of God. I will not criticize a brother in Christ for you or anyone else. And you, the Lutherans came directly out of Mother Church. WHY? Because there was something wrong that's why. Good for them. Care to express what that may be? Does Romans 1:17 ring a bell?

 

[Cruciform]

Neither, both are saved and have the Spirit of God.

How can this possibly be the case, since both you and your Lutheran brother appeal to the Holy Spirit for your conflicting interpretations of the Bible, and thus your contradictory personal doctrines? If the Holy Spirit is guiding your interpretation, and is also guiding the Lutheran's interpretations, how can the two of you possibly disagree, especially regarding such a central and defining doctrine as salvation?

If you're right, and the Holy Spirit is guiding your personal interpretation of the Bible, then it is simply inescapable that your Lutheran brother---whose doctrine of salvation you reject---must lack the same Holy Spirit who is supposedly guiding you.

Please account for this glaring discrepancy.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

How can this possibly be the case, since both you and your Lutheran brother appeal to the Holy Spirit for your conflicting interpretations of the Bible, and thus your contradictory personal doctrines? If the Holy Spirit is guiding your interpretation, and is also guiding the Lutheran's interpretations, how can the two of you possibly disagree, especially regarding such a central and defining doctrine as salvation?

If you're right, and the Holy Spirit is guiding your personal interpretation of the Bible, then it is simply inescapable that your Lutheran brother---whose doctrine of salvation you reject---must lack the same Holy Spirit who is supposedly guiding you.

Please account for this glaring discrepancy.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Read their doctrine for yourself if you are interested. As for me I am not interested. I believe in Pauline doctrine (Romans 10:9-10)

 

[Cruciform]

Read their doctrine for yourself if you are interested. As for me I am not interested. I believe in Pauline doctrine (Romans 10:9-10)

So, then, you in fact have no answer to the glaring contradictions between you and countless other Protestants. If He's guiding your interpretations in rejecting Baptismal Regeneration, then he can't be guiding the interpretations of anyone who happens to disagree with you. And if he's guiding the interpretations of your Lutheran brother, then He cannot be guiding your interpretations regarding the central Christian doctrine of salvation. So much for your claim that the Holy Spirit guides your personal interpretations of the Bible.

So we're back to my original question:

Who possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to interpret Scripture and formulate doctrine in a manner which is binding upon all believers---is it [1] Christ's one historic Church, personally founded by Jesus Christ himself to guide and teach the faithful in his own name and by his very authority, or is it [2] every individual lay believer with a Bible and an opinion? (Note that the "Bible" did not even exist at this time.) Which is it?​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

So, then, you in fact have no answer to the glaring contradictions between you and countless other Protestants. If He's guiding your interpretations in rejecting Baptismal Regeneration, then he can't be guiding the interpretations of anyone who happens to disagree with you. And if he's guiding the interpretations of your Lutheran brother, then He cannot be guiding your interpretations regarding the central Christian doctrine of salvation. So much for your claim that the Holy Spirit guides your personal interpretations of the Bible.

So we're back to my original question:

Who possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to interpret Scripture and formulate doctrine in a manner which is binding upon all believers---is it [1] Christ's one historic Church, personally founded by Jesus Christ himself to guide and teach the faithful in his own name and by his very authority, or is it [2] every individual lay believer with a Bible and an opinion? (Note that the "Bible" did not even exist at this time.) Which is it?​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Read the link and judge for yourself. When you finish let me know if you are a puppet of Mother Church.

http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/04/who-has-the-authority-to-interpret-scriptures/

 

[Cruciform]

Read the link and judge for yourself.

I'm well familiar with all three of the article's arguments, and "judged them for myself" long ago. I don't have time to critique the entire thing for you now, but if you can choose the one point in the article that you consider the strongest, I'll be happy to provide an answer.

When you finish let me know if you are a puppet of Mother Church.

Only in the sense that the early 1st-century Christians were "puppets of" the apostles and bishops, that is, of "Mother Church."


(Thanks for the article, by the way. It's a good representation of the Protestant viewpoint. I made a copy for my files.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

Taken from the article in post 267. Would you please explain in your own words why Peter is at odds with Mother Church.

Ironically, it was Peter (who is often revered in Roman Catholicism as the first Pope), who gave the command that contradicts Catholic teaching. He told the people in 2 Peter 3:2 to be mindful of the words which were spoken by the prophets, and in 2 Peter 1:19 he tells us that we would do well to heed the words of the prophets. He encourages them in 1 Peter 2:2 to drink the sincere milk that is the word of God, that they might grow.

This man is encouraging private Bible study, because the scriptures do not need to be interpreted by an authoritative human source. Nowhere does the Old Testament hold that there is required a human figure or icon that must interpret the word of God, because the word of God is interpreted and ministered by the Spirit that dwells within us (1 Corinthians 2).

That is why in Luke 2, Jesus was as a boy, teaching in the Temple, and the religious leaders were astonished at his knowledge. At the time, a mere peasant boy, interpreting the writings of the prophets.

 

[Cruciform]

Taken from the article in post 267. Would you please explain in your own words why Peter is at odds with Mother Church.
Ironically, it was Peter (who is often revered in Roman Catholicism as the first Pope), who gave the command that contradicts Catholic teaching. He told the people in 2 Peter 3:2 to be mindful of the words which were spoken by the prophets, and in 2 Peter 1:19 he tells us that we would do well to heed the words of the prophets. He encourages them in 1 Peter 2:2 to drink the sincere milk that is the word of God, that they might grow. This man is encouraging private Bible study...

Of course he is, and Catholics read and study the Bible just like Protestants do. The question is according to whose assumptions and opinions should one read and interpret the Bible? Should we seek to understand Scripture according to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, or according to the opinions of one of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more being invented every week?

The simple fact is that when one reads the Bible, he interprets it according to someone's doctrinal tradition, whether it's Catholic Tradition, or one of countless non-Catholic traditions.

Catholics seek to understand Scripture in light of the ancient teaching Tradition of Christ's Church, while non-Catholics endeavor to understand it in light of the teachings they've derived from their chosen man-made non-Catholic sect(s). Either way, however, everyone interprets the Bible according to his chosen doctrinal tradition.

Peter in no way negates or denies this basic fact. Indeed, the New Testament itself affirms that Scripture must be understood according to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (the apostles/bishops in leadership), and not according to the mere opinions of non-apostolic/non-episcopal lay believers (e.g., Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

So much for your article's erroneous assumptions and assertions on this point.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

Of course he is, and Catholics read and study the Bible just like Protestants do. The question is according to whose assumptions and opinions should one read and interpret the Bible? Should we seek to understand Scripture according to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, or according to the opinions of one of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more being invented every week?

The simple fact is that when one reads the Bible, he interprets it according to someone's doctrinal tradition, whether it's Catholic Tradition, or one of countless non-Catholic traditions.

Catholics seek to understand Scripture in light of the ancient teaching Tradition of Christ's Church, while non-Catholics endeavor to understand it in light of the teachings they've derived from their chosen man-made non-Catholic sect(s). Either way, however, everyone interprets the Bible according to his chosen doctrinal tradition.

Peter in no way negates or denies this basic fact. Indeed, the New Testament itself affirms that Scripture must be understood according to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (the apostles/bishops in leadership), and not according to the mere opinions of non-apostolic/non-episcopal lay believers (e.g., Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

So much for your article's erroneous assumptions and assertions on this point.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

That is OK. The article is erroneous in the eyes of a devout catholic.

 

[Cruciform]

That is OK. The article is erroneous in the eyes of a devout Catholic.

"That is okay. The article is convincing in the eyes of a devout anti-Catholic." (See how that works?)

If you disagree with my statements, feel free to actually disprove the content of Post #270 above. I await your substantive reply.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

>BUMP< for BR.

 

[Bright Raven]

>BUMP< for BR.

There is no sense in it because a devout Catholic will not go teachings of the church even when overridden by scripture.
Example: Who is the rock of the Church, Jesus or Peter?

 

[Cruciform]

There is no sense in it because a devout Catholic will not go teachings of the church even when overridden by scripture.

So, then, no actual disproof whatsoever of the content of my Post #270. That's what I thought.

Note that you go to the teachings of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect every bit as much as Catholics appeal to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.

Also, I'll correct your above statement by observing that Catholic teachings cannot be "overridden by Scripture"---since Catholic doctrine is the authentic interpretation of Scripture---but we will certainly go to the teachings of Christ's Church over your preferred interpretations of Scripture. Big difference there.

Example: Who is the rock of the Church, Jesus or Peter?

In Matthew 16:18 specifically, Jesus re-names Peter "Rock" (Kepha in Aramaic), and presents Himself as the Builder (and not the building materials) of the Church. For much more detail, see this and this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

So, then, no actual disproof whatsoever of the content of my Post #270. That's what I thought.

Note that you go to the teachings of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect every bit as much as Catholics appeal to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.

Also, I'll correct your above statement by observing that Catholic teachings cannot be "overridden by Scripture"---since Catholic doctrine is the authentic interpretation of Scripture---but we will certainly go to the teachings of Christ's Church over your preferred interpretations of Scripture. Big difference there.


In Matthew 16:18 specifically, Jesus re-names Peter "Rock" (Kepha in Aramaic), and presents Himself as the Builder (and not the building materials) of the Church. For much more detail, see this and this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I just happen to believe that Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the church not Peter. You don't.

 

[Cruciform]

I just happen to believe that Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the Church...

Not in Matthew 16:18 he isn't. Back to Post #275.

 

[Bright Raven]

Not in Matthew 16:18 he isn't. Back to Post #275.

Wow! I did not know that there was not a time that Jesus was not the cornerstone of the church. Could you show me that in scripture or Peter will have to retract his remarks.

 

[Cruciform]

Wow! I did not know that there was not a time that Jesus was not the cornerstone of the church. Could you show me that in scripture or Peter will have to retract his remarks.

You apparently assume that there is only one "rock" in Scripture. Of course, this is simply not the case. Lots of things---God the Father, Jesus Christ, each individual believer, etc.---are referred to as "rock" in the Bible. So no, I did not say that Jesus was not the cornerstone of the Church. The point is that Peter is also referred to as "Rock" in Scripture (though not in the same sense in which Jesus is the cornerstone), specifically the "rock" upon which Christ---the Builder---promises to build his Church (Mt. 16:18).

In short, though Jesus is the cornerstone in one place in Scripture, He Himself specifically names Peter "Rock" in Mt. 16:18.

Again, see this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[StanJ]

As the WORD, Jesus actually breathed scripture, so yes in a way He did teach by God's WORD alone.