Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[susanlo]

Of course Sacred Tradition cannot contradict the Scriptures, since they both come from the same Source. The issue is that Sacred Tradition is a lens through which we understand the Scriptures, and it is this lens that is now missing for those who embrace Sola Scriptura.

So Sacred Tradition is more than just oral teaching that was preached orally in the 1st century by Apostles, but there actually is some “lens?” I had asked that in post 93. So this is a “lens” that can only be used by those who are ordained and also submit to the Bishop of Rome? They then can know about what the Apostles taught orally, but other people can not? I honestly find the idea of Tradition very hard to understand. It seems to have a flexible meaning that can be bent to cover just about everything the person wants it to cover.

Yes, I agree. But during the Reformation, new doctrines were created BECAUSE of disagreements with the Church. Sola Scriptura is one of those. Rejection of the Apostolic succession, especially the Petrine gifts and office, and the Sacred Tradition are among them also.

Some reformers may have created doctrines. My church has no formal doctrine or creed other than the Bible. We do not accept the doctrines added after the 1st century. If you want to classify the Bible as a new doctrine, then…OK, whatever you want to call it. But using the Scriptures as the only source of authority is actually quite old.

Of course! Sacred Tradition does not cancel out the inspired nature of the Scriptures!

I know Catholics believe this, but if you follow the trail of comments, it was being made out that Gregory of Nyssa wrote that oral tradition is inspired teaching, but ‘Scriptures’ was the word had the adjective inspired applied to it in the writing.

 

[susanlo]

This teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition that you happen to accept because it seems clear to you in the Scriptures. But the Scriptures are not the source of it, on the contrary, they are a reflection of it.

The problem arises when your perception of the Scriptures diverges from the Teachings. Then you assume that there is a discrepancy, but it is caused by new doctrines created at the Reformation that alter the perception of the Scriptures.

The Scriptures are God’s teaching. It is where Christians like Gregory of Nyssa based their doctrine.

On the Soul and the Resurrection
“we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”
and his dialogue partner in the same writing writing said:
“And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm
I saw no mention of inspired Sacred Tradition being a source of truth and doctrine.

Elsewhere he wrote:
“We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
On the Holy Trinity
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2904.htm

 

[Vonsalza]

My church has no formal doctrine or creed other than the Bible.

Susan, this is said by practically everyone with virtually every competing doctrine…

We do not accept the doctrines added after the 1st century.

So you’re not Trinitarians? Or you think Christ was something other than “100% God AND 100% man”?

How about practices added after the first century? Do you do altar calls or pray specifically “The Sinner’s Prayer”?

If you want to classify the Bible as a new doctrine, then…OK, whatever you want to call it. But using the Scriptures as the only source of authority is actually quite old.

How did you decide which books are in your Bible? Seriously. Or did you just take the Bible as compiled by Luther?

And “scripture as the only source” is actually so new that none of the ancient Churches practiced it, Susan. None of them. In the east, west, north or south - none of them. They’re all apostolic. Even the post-Chalcedon schismatics!

Sorry but it’s true.

---

Don’t bother replying - I’m sure Guanophore and/or Georgias will touch on these themes and do it more thoroughly than I ever could. I just couldn’t help myself.

 

[susanlo]

His teaching itself is another source for the doctrine of godliness, and the Scriptures themselves testify to this. You are right, there is not elaboration on this doctrine in the Scriptures. The elaboration is found in the Sacred Tradition, the lived faith itself.

Was he writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?!
His teaching is valuable, but not to be confused with God’s Word.

This is Sacred Tradition, how the faith is lived and enacted. It includes a lifestyle, world view, the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church, the prayers etc. None of this contradicts Scripture, but from it the New Testament was created and it is the lens through which we understand what is written.

As you can see in the Scriptures themselves, they are not the only source for the doctrine of godliness. The Apostolic lifestyle itself is an equal Source. The Scriptures were never meant to be separated from this way of life.

Tradition is a lifestyle? How does one know what teachings are contained in Tradition? It just makes me dizzy…

I guess you cannot see where this comment is self contradictory. You are asserting this is the case with a Source that says the opposite!

Where does he make mention of an oral inspired teaching tradition that is separate from Scripture that is passed on in the church?
Here is the writing again:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

 

[guanophore]

So Sacred Tradition is more than just oral teaching that was preached orally in the 1st century by Apostles, but there actually is some “lens?”

There is no difference between these - you seem to be trying to separate the world view of the Apostles, and there understanding of the Scriptures from the Teaching. It includes a lifestyle, which comprises attitudes, beliefs, values, disciplines and approaches to problem solving. One’s perception, or the lens (filter if you will) through which we understand the world informs how we make meaning.

My church has no formal doctrine or creed other than the Bible.

That may be, but there are plenty of unwritten doctrines and practices that are not in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is one of those. Denial of the Sacred Tradition is another.

We do not accept the doctrines added after the 1st century.

No one should, since the divine deposit of faith was closed at the death of the last Apostle. Unfortunately, much more was “added” and “subtracted” from that deposit of faith during the Reformation. You do not realize/accept that these things have been “added” in 1500 years after the fact or you would not assert that you don’t accept the practice.

But using the Scriptures as the only source of authority is actually quite old.

Yes, 500 + years so far.

it was being made out that Gregory of Nyssa wrote that oral tradition is inspired teaching, but ‘Scriptures’ was the word had the adjective inspired applied to it in the writing.

The preaching/teaching of the Apostles was inspired, and the Scripture is inspired. The two are equal strands of the same rope. They compliment one another.

The Scriptures are God’s teaching. It is where Christians like Gregory of Nyssa based their doctrine.

The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. Gregory of Nyssa, like all the teachers of the Church, base their doctrine on the once for all divine deposit of faith, which includes Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture.

I saw no mention of inspired Sacred Tradition being a source of truth and doctrine.

every tenet

The tenents are the Sacred Traditions.

His teaching is valuable, but not to be confused with God’s Word.

I agree, the Magesterium, or teaching authority appointed by Christ, transmits God’s Word. The Inspired Word of God resides in the Church, and is infallibly protected there by the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

Tradition is a lifestyle? How does one know what teachings are contained in Tradition? It just makes me dizzy…

They are carefully described in the Catechism of the Church.

Where does he make mention of an oral inspired teaching tradition that is separate from Scripture that is passed on in the church?

He is teaching from that tradition. He is saying that the tenents he is teaching must be completely consistent with Scripture.

The link you posted went to Athanasius?

One thing the CC does not do, which seems to be a practice of Bible based Christians, is to cherry pick verses to support a certain doctrine or practice. On the contrary, Catholics must reconcile the whole of what is written. This is also true of the Church Fathers. It seems common for Bible Christians to cherry pick passages out of writings of Augustine or others like Gregory of Nyssa, and try to separate them from the rest of their writings.

Here are some additional statements from St. Gregory:

…even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably. (On “Not Three Gods”)

“An argument such as the following we have received by tradition from the Fathers; and this argument is no mere mythical narrative, but one that naturally invites our credence.” (The Great Catechism, Chapter VI)

". . . the traditional teaching which has reached us is as follows. (The Great Catechism, Chapter XXXII)

". . . they say that the charges which are being circulated against us are such as these; that we entertain opinions opposed to those who at Nicaea set forth the right and sound faith, and that without due discrimination and inquiry we received into the communion of the Catholic Church those who formerly assembled at Ancyra under the name of Marcellus. . . . But inasmuch as, since we composed that written defence of our conduct, again some of the brethren who are of one mind with us begged us to make separately with our own lips a profession of our faith, which we entertain with full conviction, following as we do the utterances of inspiration and the tradition of the Fathers, . . . (Letter 2)

 

[guanophore]

Did St. Gregory of Nyssa espouse Sola Scriptura?:

The Binding Authority of Tradition

“Instead, the sheep stray from nourishing pastures, that is, from the traditions of the fathers, lodge outside the fold”

“whether or not they support or manifest hostility towards the teachings of the fathers . . .”

“According to pious tradition he is incorporeal, invisible, uncomposite . . .”

“An argument such as the following we have received by tradition from the Fathers; . . . one that naturally invites our credence.”

“. . . the traditional teaching which has reached us is as follows.”

“. . . following as we do the utterances of inspiration and the tradition of the Fathers”

The Binding Authority of the Church as the Standard of Orthodoxy

“whose traditions are constantly preserved in writing in the churches”

“we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church”

On Authoritative Apostolic Succession

“It is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.”

“the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches”

“even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers”

The Binding Nature of the Decrees of Ecumenical Councils
“. . . they say that the charges which are being circulated against us are such as these; that we entertain opinions opposed to those who at Nicaea set forth the right and sound faith”

These passages must be taken together with his statements about the authority of Scripture.

Do you see the presence of any adherence to the Sacred tradition in these comments? It does not cancel out his respect and appeal to Scripture, but clearly, just as St. Paul told us to hold fast to the Traditions whether in writing or word of mouth, he considers them equal in authority.

Was he writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?!

He is transmitting what was deposited in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

 

[susanlo]

So… when Jesus promised that whatever Peter bound or loosed on earth, would be likewise bound or loosed in heaven… He didn’t mean that these things would stay constant? That is, if Peter loosed on earth (and therefore, Jesus loosed in heaven), you’re saying that Jesus would have allowed the particular issue to change, over time? No… that would mean that Scripture is telling falsehood!

I don’t agree with your interpretation of this verse. But that is a whole different topic.

Of course there is! There’s the whole set of historical documents of the Church, including Creeds, and conciliar decrees, and papal bulls, etc, etc! We can precisely see that these have not changed!

Are these documents considered to be God-breathed?

It’s a good question… but you haven’t demonstrated the truth of your premise!

I mean, you’re claiming that there’s no “paper trail” that would show a lack of change… but that presumption is erroneous! So: no evidence of change… when means no ‘errant Sacred Tradition’… which means no reason to doubt that ‘Sacred Tradition [is] protected from error’!

What I meant was why does the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have different teachings on Original Sin, Mary, and the whole matter of Papacy? Don’t they both cite Sacred Tradition? Which one is using the correct Tradition? How do they cite and analyze the inspired Sacred Tradition as they discuss these issues together?

 

[theCardinalbird]

The Catholic Apologist's Scriptural Cheat Sheet

Here’s a good site for the Solas and other things

SOLA SCRIPTURA
Jn 21:25 … not everything is in the Bible.

2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 … Paul speaks of oral tradition. Acts 2:42 … early Christians followed apostolic tradition.

2 Pet 3:16 … Bible hard to understand, get distorted.

2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 … more oral tradition.

2 Pet 1:20-21 … against personal interpretation.

Acts 8:30-31 … guidance needed to interpret scriptures.

Heb 5:12 … need to be taught.

Hope it helps

 

[susanlo]

He is teaching from that tradition. He is saying that the tenents he is teaching must be completely consistent with Scripture.

The link you posted went to Athanasius?

I had 3 quotes back in post 27, and there were multiple back and forths in response to them. I think you picked up in the middle of that discussion which involved Gregory of Nyssa and Athanasius in the same post, so that explains the confusion.

Here are some additional statements from St. Gregory:

I have been going through these quotes carefully. All of the writings are on the new advent’s website. But I don’t see where he wrote that there is a Sacred Tradition that is inspired by God and equal to Scripture in authority. He does make mention of tradition. It seems like he is using this term as others of his day did to mean teaching. I don’t see him separate Sacred Tradition from other teachings/traditions. He is often writing of the “tradition of the fathers.” Who did he mean by fathers? Was he talking about the Apostles or the early Christians? In your last quote he even separates the inspired teaching and the traditions of Fathers. He did not seem to think that the “tradition of the Fathers” were inspired, but that they had value. I wouldn’t expect him to disregard the “traditions of the Fathers” altogether. But that doesn’t put them on the same level as Scripture which he tells us elsewhere is “the rule and the measure of every tenet.”

 

[susanlo]

Did St. Gregory of Nyssa espouse Sola Scriptura?:

These quotes are all so small and unsourced. I don’t think we should derive our understanding based on fragments of sentences from scattered writings. Are there any particular writings represented here that you wanted to discuss?

 

[guanophore]

But I don’t see where he wrote that there is a Sacred Tradition that is inspired by God and equal to Scripture in authority.

I guess you are not able to grasp the gist of his writings (other than the ones you want to interpret to support your thesis). I don’t believe that he makes that statement anywhere. I am surprised you accept the docrtine of hypostatic union, since it is not stated specifically the way you want it to be in Scripture. Or that we should no longer observe the Sabbath on Saturday, since the NT does not give clear instruction we should not. Or the Trinity, since you “cant see anywhere that it states that”.

He does make mention of tradition. It seems like he is using this term as others of his day did to mean teaching.

Yes.

How would your life have to change, if you were to acknowledge that there really is a sacred tradition.

Who did he mean by fathers? Was he talking about the Apostles or the early Christians?

The Sacred Tradition is passed down from the Apostles through the paradosis. In his day, many “fathers” of the Chruch had already written and preached on these subjects. In today’s terms, it is referred to as the Magesterium, or the Teaching Authority of the Church. They are the custodians of Sacred Tradition.

“utterances of inspiration” would be prophetic words through the charism of the Holy Spirit. Prophetic utterances also should not contradict Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (by which they are validated as authentic).

Gregory also held to the Councils as custodians of the Word of God. He would be bound by the documents of the Councils, most recently that of Nicea I.

 

[guanophore]

! There’s the whole set of historical documents of the Church, including Creeds, and conciliar decrees, and papal bulls, etc, etc! We can precisely see that these have not changed!

Are these documents considered to be God-breathed?

The Apostolic Teaching is God-Breathed, as Jesus breathed upon them, and they “spoke from God”. The Sacred Tradition is the preservation of these teachings, which is held infallibly by the HS in the Church.

These quotes are all so small and unsourced. I don’t think we should derive our understanding based on fragments of sentences from scattered writings.

They are situated in long discourses that are irrelevant to the concept of Sacred Tradition. The point of posting the fragments is to demonstrate that Gregory held to the Magesterium, and the Sacred Tradition (what was received from the Fathers). If you wish to disregard the small references because they contradict your conclusion, I guess that is no different than ignoring biblical texts that do the same. One must ignore significant biblical passages to espouse Sola Scriptura.

Are there any particular writings represented here that you wanted to discuss?

No, I will accept that you have decided Gregory of Nyssa believed something he did not.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t agree with your interpretation of this verse. But that is a whole different topic.

Fair enough. However, if the discussion is all about authority to proclaim doctrine infallibly, I think that Mt 16 is a critical text to discuss…

susanlo:

Of course there is! There’s the whole set of historical documents of the Church, including Creeds, and conciliar decrees, and papal bulls, etc, etc! We can precisely see that these have not changed!

Are these documents considered to be God-breathed?

Again, Matthew 16.

I would assert that they represent God’s truth, but in a different manner than the Bible:

• God inspires men to write down His truth in the Bible.
• Jesus promises that what the leaders of His Church proclaim as (doctrinal) truth, He will accept in heaven.

So, if not “God-breathed”, then definitely “accepted as proxy from Jesus”.

What I meant was why does the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have different teachings on Original Sin, Mary, and the whole matter of Papacy? Don’t they both cite Sacred Tradition? Which one is using the correct Tradition? How do they cite and analyze the inspired Sacred Tradition as they discuss these issues together?

As a Catholic, I would respond that they dissented from the teachings of the Church and separated themselves from the Church. So, in the same way that I don’t hold you to the traditions of other Reformation communities, I would say it’s unfair to point to other groups that have broken from the Catholic Church and say “see! they believe differently than you!”

We would hold that the fullness of the Truth is found in Catholic teaching. If one chooses to build their own traditions of men, then they’re responsible for them…

 

[mcq72]

SOLA SCRIPTURA

Jn 21:25 … not everything is in the Bible.

and ?..is there a suggestion that we need to go elsewhere, or that some tradition has been left out of writ ? Is there anything wrong by taking this to mean that what is left out is simply much repetition, of saying/teaching same thing, just in different circumstances, places etc. , and many more miracles etc. ?

 

[mcq72]

2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 … Paul speaks of oral tradition. Acts 2:42 … early Christians followed apostolic tradition.

yep, there is that word “tradition”. What does that mean? Can one imply that important doctrine has been left out of writ ? Is that really what is suggested ? I mean from Adam to Moses, we only had oral tradition, and did the jews then say we can go beyond what you write Moses/Jehovah, for certainly you might have missed something, and our traditions formulated during that writ absent period could only be 100% spot on ?

Of course new circumstances come up, and discernment is needed , yet I would suggest the first rule or guidance is for the Lord to use His writ to that end.

 

[susanlo]

I guess you are not able to grasp the gist of his writings (other than the ones you want to interpret to support your thesis). I don’t believe that he makes that statement anywhere. I am surprised you accept the docrtine of hypostatic union, since it is not stated specifically the way you want it to be in Scripture. Or that we should no longer observe the Sabbath on Saturday, since the NT does not give clear instruction we should not. Or the Trinity, since you “cant see anywhere that it states that”.

Some of these writings are complex and the translations are in an out-dated English, however I am able to get a basic understanding of what he is writing about. I simply don’t see where he points to a source outside of Scripture that is God-breathed and equal in authority to Scripture.
These other topics could all have their own threads. There is a lot of Biblical and historical evidence for all of these. There is no Biblical or historical evidence that I am aware of that shows that there are Apostolic teachings that are not in Scripture, but are preserved orally without error and used in creating doctrines.

Yes.

How would your life have to change, if you were to acknowledge that there really is a sacred tradition.

Where did Gregory of Nyssa mention sacred tradition? Your quotes mentioned “traditions of the fathers.” These are teachings by the church fathers. These are not “traditions of the Apostles.” It seems like you are inadvertently taking the word tradition out of context. At that time tradition was used to mean teaching or instruction. He is talking about teaching (tradition) of the early Christians (fathers) and not inspired Apostolic teachings preserved without error. I do accept that there was instruction given in the early centuries. While these are very valuable we can’t put them on the same level as Scripture.

 

[theCardinalbird]

and ?..is there a suggestion that we need to go elsewhere, or that some tradition has been left out of writ ? Is there anything wrong by taking this to mean that what is left out is simply much repetition, of saying/teaching same thing, just in different circumstances, places etc. , and many more miracles etc. ?

are you asking me if there is another authority next to sacred scripture that we should look at?

 

[mcq72]

2 Pet 3:16 … Bible hard to understand, get distorted.

And??? does that mean others have it down pat, listen to them ? Does it suggest the need for a magisterium, or an apostle or successor or any specific office holder to be infallible for the reader ? Peter does not suggest any such thing. No on the contrary, we can know these things , that is to beware, and that understanding writ is serious business, but possible. Even John in his epistles says, “children, ye know all things…having an unction from the Holy Ghost.”

Does it not go on to say rather say that a unstable heart condition, one of poor soil, will indeed be problematic? No amount of magisterium, guidance can change that, for a poor disposition will distort any good thing from God.

Peter is not saying writ is difficult to understand or that an interpreter is needed , but more that it is difficult to fathom. Like i know what the speed of light is, and I know some starlight is reaching us from star that may have already "died’, but certainly it is difficult to “fathom”.

On the positive side, the text denotes that indeed writ is circulating, and playing important part.

St Augustine , “we needed the authority of Holy Writ…surpassing authority through out the whole world…those writings explained in a probable manner…writ authority seemed more venerable and worthy of inviolable, because they were easy for everyone to read and yet safeguarded the dignity of their hidden truth within a deeper meaning, by words completely clear and by a lowly style of speech making itself accessible to all men,and drawing the attention of those who are not light of heart.” Confessions bk 6, ch5

To say writ is superior authority does not mean you don’t have teachers and preachers, for Augustine says writ can be “explained”(by a believer, teacher, church) yet the explainer is not above that which he explains, they are not competing authorities

 

[susanlo]

As a Catholic, I would respond that they dissented from the teachings of the Church and separated themselves from the Church. So, in the same way that I don’t hold you to the traditions of other Reformation communities, I would say it’s unfair to point to other groups that have broken from the Catholic Church and say “see! they believe differently than you!”

We would hold that the fullness of the Truth is found in Catholic teaching. If one chooses to build their own traditions of men, then they’re responsible for them…

But I am being told that the Catholic Church can not teach error because the Holy Spirit preserves Apostolic Tradition without error for those who have valid Apostolic succession. But the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches a different set of teachings and claim that they also have a Sacred Tradition preserved without error under protection of the Holy Spirit. It seems obvious when comparing these 2 churches with the same claims and different “traditions” that those that have “valid Apostolic succession” can teach error.

How do you explain the Bishops with valid succession in the Eastern Orthodox Church that teach things that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church?

When 2 post-reformation churches have a disagreement: for example a Methodist and Baptist minister want to debate infant baptism - they can sit down with a Bible and historical writings. They both claim that the Bible is God’s inspired word and authoritative and that other historical documents can have merit if they are determined to be authentic historical documents. They can together turn to the same chapter or verse and read specifically the exact content of the source. Neither one of these ministers claim to have a special teaching that only they can properly interpret and teach on because their church is the only one that has a special teaching protected by the Holy Spirit.
A Roman Catholic Priest and an Eastern Orthodox Priest can’t open up Tradition to Chapter 7 and compare the teachings. Tradition is something intangible and flexible. Churches that claim to have a special “Sacred Tradition” use it to come to 2 different conclusions. So why would I trust what one church says is authoritative teaching because it is “Sacred Tradition?”