An Unrealisitc Request about Jesus and Paul

[ralphinal]

Can anyone show me the verses where Jesus taught the five solas?

My position is that if Jesus did not teach them, but Paul did than there are three concusions. First, they were part of the Oral teaching of the church, thus negating sola scriptura at its root. Therefore, there is no sola scriptura. Second, Paul was not teaching the Gosple of Jesus, meaning the NT contains non-inspired books. Therefore, there is no Scripture. Third, Paul founded his own faith away from the original Church of Jesus. Therefore, there was no early Church.

Now, there is also the possibility that neither one of them taught any of the five. In which case I ask why do you?

 

[With_Questions]

Can anyone show me the verses where Jesus taught the five solas?

My position is that if Jesus did not teach them, but Paul did than there are three concusions. First, they were part of the Oral teaching of the church, thus negating sola scriptura at its root. Therefore, there is no sola scriptura. Second, Paul was not teaching the Gosple of Jesus, meaning the NT contains non-inspired books. Therefore, there is no Scripture. Third, Paul founded his own faith away from the original Church of Jesus. Therefore, there was no early Church.

Now, there is also the possibility that neither one of them taught any of the five. In which case I ask why do you?

Wait a minute.

What if Jesus was silent concerning the Solas but Paul did teach them? Then Jesus and Paul do not contradict.

Then I would ask whether there are other teachings of Paul which Jesus did not teach? If so, then I would ask why wouldn’t we treat the Solas as these other teachings of Paul which Jesus did not teach.

I have no intention in getting sucked into a discussion on whether Paul taught the Solas or whether Jesus taught against them. I am just commenting on the premise here.

 

[ralphinal]

Wait a minute.

What if Jesus was silent concerning the Solas but Paul did teach them? Then Jesus and Paul do not contradict.

Then I would ask whether there are other teachings of Paul which Jesus did not teach? If so, then I would ask why wouldn’t we treat the Solas as these other teachings of Paul which Jesus did not teach.

I have no intention in getting sucked into a discussion on whether Paul taught the Solas or whether Jesus taught against them. I am just commenting on the premise here.

Paul himself said that he taught no Gosple other than the Gosple of Christ. If Paul teaches it, Jesus and the other Apostles taught it, too. If Paul teaches something that Jesus never taught, let alone taught against, then Paul either added to the Gosple or taught a new one.

Why would the discussion be a threat to anyone? Surely, the Gosples record everything Jesus said and did. Sola Scriptura should be clearly taught by Jesus. Sola Fide and Gracia as well. This should be an easy chance for Protestants to show that the Catholic Church teaches the Gosple different than Christ.

 

[With_Questions]

Paul himself said that he taught no Gosple other than the Gosple of Christ. If Paul teaches it, Jesus and the other Apostles taught it, too. If Paul teaches something that Jesus never taught, let alone taught against, then Paul either added to the Gosple or taught a new one.

Why would the discussion be a threat to anyone? Surely, the Gosples record everything Jesus said and did. Sola Scriptura should be clearly taught by Jesus. Sola Fide and Gracia as well. This should be an easy chance for Protestants to show that the Catholic Church teaches the Gosple different than Christ.

Well the first question I would ask is whether there are any other teachings of Paul that Jesus did not teach? If there are, then your premise has to apply to all of these teachings.

I’ll start with a one. Jesus never taught about spiritual gifts as Paul did in Romans 12:4-8 and 1 Corinthians chapters 12 and 14.

I am quite sure that I can find others, but one will suffice.

Maybe you have an invalid premise.

 

[Good_Fella]

Well the first question I would ask is whether there are any other teachings of Paul that Jesus did not teach?

I’ll start with a one. Jesus never taught about spiritual gifts as Paul did in Romans 12:4-8.
.

It could be that Jesus did preach about the spiritual gifts Paul did, but the apostle expresses himself in a different way by what he understood Jesus was implying.

Meanwhile, we do know that Paul did not write about everything that was written in the gospels: for instance, the virgin birth. Yet Paul must have preached about the virgin birth. So obviously the written word is not the sole medium of divine revelation. Most of Paul’s disciples probably never read the gospels. Scripture must be coupled with oral tradition, which is part of Sacred Tradtion.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught either by an oral statement or in writing.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

Paul: “So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually parts of one another.”
Jesus: " I am the vine, you are the branches …" And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one ."

Paul: “Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given us, let us exercise them: if prophecy, in proportion to the faith;
Jesus: " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father .”

Paul: "if ministry, in ministering;
Jesus: " Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ,

Paul: “if one is a teacher, in teaching;
Jesus: " teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you .”

Paul: " if one exhorts, in exhortation;
Jesus: " Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned your back, you must strengthen your brothers ."

Paul: “if one contributes, in generosity;
Jesus: " When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypoctites do in the synagouges and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your write hand is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you .”

Paul: “if one is over others, with diligence.”
Jesus: " " Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give ."

PAX

 

[ralphinal]

Good Fella does a good job with his post. My whole position is that if Paul expounds upon anything, it first must be the same as what Jesus taught AND it must have been taught by Jesus. Catholics have no issue with the fact that not everything that Jesus said or did is in the Gosple. We know that to be the case as John said it in his. Paul used a quote from Jesus that Jesus never said in the four Gosples, in from of Peter, and nothing was said about it.

The early Church was founded on both oral teaching and scriptures. Paul had both, and did both. Sola Scriptura, as a doctrine, was never taught by Jesus in the Gosples. It is impossible that it was taught orally, as it would no longer be sola scriptura. Therefore, Paul could not be teaching it and still be in line with Jesus. If Sola Scriptura falls, the others do as well.

Further, some claim that the Catholic CHurch teaches a different Gosple than Jesus. As a point of fact, what some see as comflicting only conflicts with a slanted view of Paul. One cannot read the Gosple and make it fit Paul, one must read Paul and make him fit the Gosple. I have yet to see one iota of proof that the Catholic Church contradicts Jesus

 

[geezerbob]

If everyone studied the teachings of Jesus first, then studied Paul and interpreted his writings in light of what Jesus taught, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It comes about because many people are taught an erroneous interpretation of Paul, then either ignore what Jesus taught or have to jump through hoops trying to twist it to justify their predetermined theology. Jesus first, folks, then Paul. Doing it the other way around endangers your spiritual well-being.

 

[With_Questions]

It could be that Jesus did preach about the spiritual gifts Paul did, but the apostle expresses himself in a different way by what he understood Jesus was implying.

Well, I’m sure that if I am creative enough, I can find just about anything I want in the teachings of Jesus.

The fact is that Jesus never addresses the topic of “gifts of the Holy Spirit” in his teaching.

But never mind, I thought of even a better example. Jesus never taught on the subject “Immaculate Conception”. Neither did Paul, but that is irrelevant.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, I’m sure that if I am creative enough, I can find just about anything I want in the teachings of Jesus.

The fact is that Jesus never addresses the topic of “gifts of the Holy Spirit” in his teaching.

But never mind, I thought of even a better example. Jesus never taught on the subject “Immaculate Conception”. Neither did Paul, but that is irrelevant.

We do not know that Jesus did not teach about the Gifts. They very well may have been part of the things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded. In other words, part of the Oral Tradition.

The Immaculate Conception is important in the conversation, but it is tied to the authority of the Church to teach. Sola Scriptura says that the Church has no authority. The Gospel says it does.

 

[With_Questions]

Good Fella does a good job with his post. My whole position is that if Paul expounds upon anything, it first must be the same as what Jesus taught AND it must have been taught by Jesus.

Gifts of the Holy Spirit is a topic that Jesus did not teach about unless you want to get very creative.

Neither was the Immaculate Conception.

So until you tell me where Jesus talked about the Immaculate Conception, your whole premise fails.

 

[With_Questions]

We do not know that Jesus did not teach about the Gifts. They very well may have been part of the things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded. In other words, part of the Oral Tradition.

But the premise is that in order for a teaching to be valid, Jesus must have taught about it. Not could possibly have taught about it. I must be able to find a link between that teaching and the words of Christ.

I can find no evidence that Jesus taught on either the gifts of the Holy Spirit or on the Immaculate Conception.

Since none of us were around in the time of Christ, the only way we know for sure whether Jesus taught on a given subject is the written record. You just can’t use oral tradition as a bucket for stuff that is not a part of the written record.

By the way, depending on the definition of Sola Scriptura, I am not sure whether the concept of Oral Tradition directly directly contradicts Sola Scriptura. But that is a separate topic. For me, I don’t like working with phrases without verbs anyway.

Now if you want to clarify or change your premise…

 

[ralphinal]

But the premise is that in order for a teaching to be valid, Jesus must have taught about it. Not could possibly have taught about it. I must be able to find a link between that teaching and the words of Christ.

I can find no evidence that Jesus taught on either the gifts of the Holy Spirit or on the Immaculate Conception.

Since none of us were around in the time of Christ, the only way we know for sure whether Jesus taught on a given subject is the written record. You just can’t use oral tradition as a bucket for stuff that is not a part of the written record.

By the way, depending on the definition of Sola Scriptura, I am not sure whether the concept of Oral Tradition directly directly contradicts Sola Scriptura. But that is a separate topic. For me, I don’t like working with phrases without verbs anyway.

Now if you want to clarify or change your premise…

My position is simple. There is no proof that Jesus or the early Church taught that all you need to know the faith is the Bible. Further, there is no proof that the early Church had a disconnect between salvation, faith, grace, and works. If this is taught in Paul, it should be taught in the Gospel, or else it was taught by the Apostles who had learned it from Jesus.

 

[With_Questions]

My position is simple. There is no proof that Jesus or the early Church taught that all you need to know the faith is the Bible. Further, there is no proof that the early Church had a disconnect between salvation, faith, grace, and works. If this is taught in Paul, it should be taught in the Gospel, or else it was taught by the Apostles who had learned it from Jesus.

OK.

You now have changed your premise from the original post. I am fine with that because the initial premise was flawed.

Except your last sentence needs some rework since Paul was an apostle and Galatians 1:12 indicates that Paul got his teaching straight from the risen Christ. In other words, there is no false dichotomy between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Christ.

Galatians 1:12 implies that if in fact Paul did in fact teach Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, that this teaching came straight from the risen Christ.

However, Paul did use verbs when he taught. Therefore he did not teach “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”. Now he might very well have taught stuff that is labelled (either accurately or inaccurately) Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

However, I have no intention on getting sucked into a conversation on these topics beyond these observations.

 

[ralphinal]

OK.

You now have changed your premise from the original post. I am fine with that because the initial premise was flawed.

Except your last sentence is ambiguous since Paul was an apostle and Galatians 1:12 indicates that Paul got his teaching straight from the risen Christ. In other words, there is no false dichotomy between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Christ.

Now separate issues here are whether
“all you need to know the faith is the Bible” is Sola Scriptura and
whether
" disconnect between salvation, faith, grace, and works." is Sola Fide.

I suspect not, but then again Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are really not within the lexicon of the church I attend.

But then again, I have no intention on getting sucked into a conversation on these topics, particularly when they are not well defined…

I had to change my initial position because the concept seemed a little off as a read it. Many times, I try to discuss with Muslims and all that I am told is that Paul corrupted Christianity. It is hard to argue when you speak to some Protestants and all they do is quote Paul. After all, when you only refer to Paul, it seems like you are ignoring Jesus. Some non_catholics also hold that we teach a different Gospel. This is asanine, but it is what they say. My whole position is that NO ONE prior to Luther taught that all you need is a bible and faith. Jesus could have said as much.

Paul did get his teachings form Christ, and allowed himself to be questioned by the twelve. They found no issue with him. How could Paul teach sola Scriptura when there was no Scriptures? Jesus founded a Church and told that Church to teach all men. There is no quesiton of that, unless you buy into some modern revisionist history.

What Church do you belong to that holds none of the Solas? By the way, I agree that I do not like terms with no verbs.

 

[With_Questions]

What Church do you belong to that holds none of the Solas? By the way, I agree that I do not like terms with no verbs.

What I said is that the terms “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide” are not within the lexicon of our church. You can read our Statement of Faith and you will not find these terms. Our pastor does have a preference of English to Latin.

Now our statement of faith may or may not contain what is commonly known as “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”. I don’t know, it is actually a quite general statement of faith. But I suppose it depends on how you define these phrases.

 

[iaskquestions]

I don’t think people are understanding Raphinal correctly here (and Raphinal, do correct me if I’m wrong! ).

What Raphinal is saying is that not everything that Jesus taught is documented in scripture. Therefore scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith, since it is not complete or sufficient. Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. But it does not say that scripture is the sole rule of faith, for it is not complete.

Scripture has to go hand in hand with Tradition (the teachings of the Christ and the Apostles, which were not written down but passed down orally).

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think people are understanding Raphinal correctly here (and Raphinal, do correct me if I’m wrong! ).

What Raphinal is saying is that not everything that Jesus taught is documented in scripture. Therefore scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith, since it is not complete or sufficient. Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. But it does not say that scripture is the sole rule of faith, for it is not complete.

Scripture has to go hand in hand with Tradition (the teachings of the Christ and the Apostles, which were not written down but passed down orally).

There you go.

Jesus may have taught it and Paul picked up on it. In which case, it cannot be sola scriptura.

Oral tradition and written word made up Judaism of Jesus’s day. Why would it be logical that Christianity would be different?

Luther himself said that everything hangs on sola scriptura. After all, if there is an authoritative Church, then everything he taught is defiance of it is wrong.

 

[iaskquestions]

One cannot say, “Well, if that tradition is not found in scripture, it’s not true.” That statement is based on the flawed assumption that scripture is complete. Christ did not leave us with a book, he left us with a Church. He said, “I will build my church”. It is he who helped his church to faithfully pass the traditions to generations of believers over the centuries. You have to trust these traditions.

 

[Radical]

Ralphinal,

Oral tradition and written word made up Judaism of Jesus’s day. Why would it be logical that Christianity would be different?
.

I would suggest that sola scriptura is an answer to a rather modern question. That question could be worded as: “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” The answer to that question would not always have been the same. The answer in 30 AD is different from the answer in 60 AD and both of those answers could be different from the answer in 1520 AD (or in 2008 AD, for that matter).
The aspect of “full message” calls into consideration the question of whether scripture is materially and/or formally sufficient.
The “free from any error” aspect together with the “sola” aspect of the answer calls into question whether tradition contains any error.
The “at this time” aspect recognizes that what has provided by God has changed over time. In 30 AD the answer to the question would have been “in Jesus’s teaching”. In 60 AD the answer to the question would have been “in the inspired teachings, both oral and recorded, of the apsotles and the Jewish scriptures”. The fact that the correct answer in 30 or 60 AD is not “sola scriptura” does not mean that the correct answer could not be sola scriptura in 1520 AD as things changed in the interim.

 

[TriuneUnity]

There you go.

Jesus may have taught it and Paul picked up on it. In which case, it cannot be sola scriptura.

Oral tradition and written word made up Judaism of Jesus’s day. Why would it be logical that Christianity would be different?

Luther himself said that everything hangs on sola scriptura. After all, if there is an authoritative Church, then everything he taught is defiance of it is wrong.

No one denies that until the Scriptures were written, the norm of revelation had to be orally preached. This was true of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. Sola Scriptura does not address the apostolic period.