Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[Trishie]

Two biblical scriptures to counter the claim that there is no biblical basis disprove sola scripture.
In Jesus’ own words.

John 16:12-15

“There is so much more I want to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.
He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.
He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me.
All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’

and

Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

God bless you

 

[po18guy]

Quite right. To avoid misunderstanding, Catholics love and revere the scriptures, which are commonly called “Holy writ.” They are irreplaceable and indispensable.

However, Jesus never wrote a thing for us. He never commanded the writing of anything. He did not advise believers to run to the printed page to solve disputes. He empowered and sent Apostles, telling them “He who hears you hears Me.” Luke 10:16

He also taught that disputes should be handled face-to-face, then with two or three friends, then by the Church. If the man will not listen to the Church he is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector (excommunicated). Matthew 18:15-18

Saint Paul wrote much about the Church. It is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), and that through the Church even the heavenly authorities will come to know the wisdom of God. Eph 3:10

Those who adhere to bible alone deny it, but they follow man. We can name those men.

 

[GML3]

These scriptures seem to be a reference to the New Testament, which is also scripture.

 

[nodelink]

“He who has an ear, ought to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches” - (seven times in red letters in the seven letters to the Churches in Revelation 2-3 in red letter editions of the Bible).

The Holy Spirit continues to speak through the Churches. The work of the Spirit is seen in Church history and in the lives of the saints throughout the centuries. Spiritual gifts differ. Not every gift and understanding is given to every professed believer in every place in every time. We need the Church, need each other, need the communion of saints across the centuries of Church History, need the sacraments of the church, need the homilies of the ordained leaders, need the magisterium of the Church, etc.

The doctrinal practice of Sola Scriptura can easily slip to mean that grace is not needed, the Church is not needed, the Spirit is not needed and the Scriptures can be used to leave every person alone to interpret Scripture on their own for their own interpretation alone.

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not found in Scripture and not taught by the universal Catholic Church which has continued across the centuries since it was founded upon the foundation of the Twelve Apostles.

 

[Wannano]

Quite right. To avoid misunderstanding, Catholics love and revere the scriptures, which are commonly called “Holy writ.” They are irreplaceable and indispensable.

Am I right in saying that the CC believes that the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit would have guided the thoughts of the writers?

 

[susanlo]

Two biblical scriptures to counter the claim that there is no biblical basis disprove sola scripture.
In Jesus’ own words.

John 16:12-15

“There is so much more I want to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.
He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.
He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me.
All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’

I thought that this passage was referring to the writing of inspired scripture. Christians generally believe that the scriptures were written by men, but inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is therefore “God’s Word.” In the 3rd century there were some claiming to receive new prophecies from the Holy Spirit, but this was rejected as heretical. Are there any accepted revelations after John’s Revelation?

I thought that what is taught by the Pope and determined in councils is not considered to be new revelations received through the Holy Spirit, but it is claimed to be clarifications that are made. These teachings are claimed to be protected from error, but not inspired in the way that scripture is. How could these verses be applied to teachings or traditions that were developed over the centuries and not given under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[mcq72]

There is so much more I want to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.

He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.

He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me.

All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’

I mean this could unsettle not just scriptura, but need for papacy, or a magisterium/teachers…like the scripture that says neighbor will not need to teach his neighbor, for each will have His laws written in their heart.

 

[Gorgias]

Two biblical scriptures to counter the claim that there is no biblical basis disprove sola scripture.

I thought that this passage was referring to the writing of inspired scripture. Christians generally believe that the scriptures were written by men, but inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And, @Trishie, there’s your answer right there.

I think, though, that if we say that sola scriptura is a non-scriptural teaching, then it’s difficult to ask Scripture to comment on what Scripture doesn’t teach.

Rather, it’s necessary to ask adherents to sola scriptura to prove that claim from Scripture. (And, if the claim is merely the quote that “All Scripture is profitable…”, then the natural response is “yes, it is profitable – but it doesn’t say that it is the sole source of teaching.”

How could these verses be applied to teachings or traditions that were developed over the centuries and not given under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

John’s assertions in chapter 20 and 21, that there are many more signs and things Jesus did than are recorded in Scripture seems to be the most plain refutation of sola scriptura, especially when you remember that Jesus’ command was Apostolic Teaching (and not just getting into publishing). If there are Apostolic Teachers, and the Bible says that there was teaching not recorded in the Bible… then you would expect that there is Apostolic Teaching that is from Jesus but not in the Bible. Therefore, sola scriptura fails on its very foundation.

 

[po18guy]

Simply put, yes.

 

[Wannano]

However, Jesus never wrote a thing for us. He never commanded the writing of anything.

But then, Jesus did say the Holy Spirit would tell us everything that the Holy Spirit received from Jesus. Trusting in that, and considering that the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why would we consider that we do not have in the Scriptures everything necessary for us and that God gave us an incomplete message?

 

[susanlo]

Rather, it’s necessary to ask adherents to sola scriptura to prove that claim from Scripture. (And, if the claim is merely the quote that “All Scripture is profitable…”, then the natural response is “yes, it is profitable – but it doesn’t say that it is the sole source of teaching.”

Scripture is authoritative because it is the word of God.
2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
This does not say that it is the sole source of teaching. (That isn’t exactly what sola scriptura means anyway.) This source tells us that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Where in the Bible does it say that oral Tradition is the inspired word of God? I am not aware that the Scriptures say that oral Tradition is God-breathed. To accept oral Tradition to be the inspired word of God, one must have faith in a source outside of the Bible to make that case.

John’s assertions in chapter 20 and 21, that there are many more signs and things Jesus did than are recorded in Scripture seems to be the most plain refutation of sola scriptura, especially when you remember that Jesus’ command was Apostolic Teaching (and not just getting into publishing). If there are Apostolic Teachers, and the Bible says that there was teaching not recorded in the Bible… then you would expect that there is Apostolic Teaching that is from Jesus but not in the Bible. Therefore, sola scriptura fails on its very foundation.

I would agree that not all inspired words spoken by Jesus and the Apostles are captured in the pages of the Bible. I trust that the Holy Spirit was capable of inspiring the words that Christians would need to be written down. I would disagree that the Apostles’ teaching has been preserved orally for 2000 years and never put into writing. I find this so confusing because there is no set of defined beliefs that fit into the category of Tradition. If the Holy Spirit and the Apostles were not able to capture all of the needed teachings in writing in the first century, why couldn’t these oral teachings have been written in entirety by now. It seems to be a flexible and loosely defined category of teachings that change and bend over the centuries.
If Tradition was passed on orally through the generations without error, why was there a need for Church councils? How could Bishops who qualified under the Roman Catholic definition of Apostolic Succession disagree on the content of oral Tradition? The very fact that the content of Tradition can be disagreed upon seems to show that it is not preserved without error.

 

[Reuben_J]

That’s why it is Tradition, not written. You need a Church to have Tradition. The Church is not just an institution, it’s a living body of Jesus.

 

[po18guy]

Certainly the NT is scripture - but where does it claim that about itself? Not one of the NT scripture writers gave even a hint that they themselves were writing scripture. An individual’s opinion of what he writes does not determine if it is scripture or not. Something else does.

Christ gave all authority to his Church - the Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. To think otherwise is to make Jesus a liar and false christ. We are NOT going to go there!

We have the NT solely because certain members of the Church were inspired to write it - but many early Christians wrote many things, indeed hundreds of writings, letters, epistles, exhortations, novels, chronologies, pseudo-this and gnostic-that. How do we know that the NT is inspired and contains exactly what God intended? How do we know 27 books? Why not 15, or 30?

The Church. Nothing else.

If you trust Christ, you must trust His Church.

 

[po18guy]

Because you seem to assume that everything was written in the bible. AYKM? The bible itsefl tells you that it is incomplete! John, the beloved disciple, wrote this TWICE!

Hello?

‘Bible alone’ opposes Christ’s commands and wishes. You want only a tiny fraction of what the Apostles preached? Fine. but it leads believers astray.

Christ desires unity. Bible alone produces nothing but disunity, division, deception and doubt. All begin with the letter “D” - just like devil.

Who first twisted scripture?

Who?

Satan. In his temptation of Christ in the desert.

Next question, please.

 

[po18guy]

You are once again defending the indefensible. NO ONE claimed bible alone until 1500s Europe. If Christ established bible alone, why does the bible not SAY so?

Did Christ preach in 1500s Europe?

I do not question your faith or love of God.

I strongly question your theology - which opposes even your bible alone brothers!

Do you see why Christianity is increasingly rejected?

The test of falsehood in the bible is witnesses who do not agree!

Ponder that.

p.s. Let’s try really hard to not further derail this thread. Read the title. It is specific.

 

[GML3]

“Christ gave all authority to his church”

Does God decide who enters heaven? Or does the Church? Only God knows the hearts of men.

 

[Wannano]

Because you seem to assume that everything was written in the bible. AYKM? The bible itsefl tells you that it is incomplete! John, the beloved disciple, wrote this TWICE!

Hello?

‘Bible alone’ opposes Christ’s commands and wishes. You want only a tiny fraction of what the Apostles preached? Fine. but it leads believers astray.

Christ desires unity. Bible alone produces nothing but disunity, division, deception and doubt. All begin with the letter “D” - just like devil.

Who first twisted scripture?

Who?

Satan. In his temptation of Christ in the desert.

Next question, please.

Wow, what arrogance! YMCU.

 

[Gorgias]

Scripture is authoritative because it is the word of God.

Agreed. Does sola scriptura merely assert that Scripture is ‘authoritative’? Or does it make the unsupported claim that only Scripture is authoritative?

This does not say that it is the sole source of teaching. (That isn’t exactly what sola scriptura means anyway.)

For some it does. For others, it means something else. (And folks say that varying interpretations of Catholic doctrines by Catholics themselves, is confusing! )

This source tells us that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Where in the Bible does it say that oral Tradition is the inspired word of God? I am not aware that the Scriptures say that oral Tradition is God-breathed.

John 20:21-22:

"[Jesus] said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the holy Spirit.’"

Very literally, we have both “God-breathed” and “sent to proclaim Jesus’ teachings”.

We literally have both things there…!

To accept oral Tradition to be the inspired word of God

I’d settle for what you claimed about the Bible: authoritative.

, one must have faith in a source outside of the Bible to make that case.

You mean a source like the ones to whom Jesus gave the proxy to act in His name…?

p.s. Let’s try really hard to not further derail this thread. Read the title. It is specific.

I think I’d make a case for my assertions in this post: if Jesus sets up the Apostles as God-breathed teachers of His Gospel, then we have a direct rebuttal of a doctrine that states that only the Bible fills that role.

 

[po18guy]

The Church does not judge - not even Judas, Luther or Hitler. God does. But, did Christ say that we must follow His commandments?

Yes, he did.

Who protects, teaches and enforces those commandments?

“He who hears you hears Me” Luke 10:16.

“If they will not hear you, shake the dust off your sandals as a testimony against them.” Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5

What happens when those commandments are violated?

“What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, was for your sake in the person of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 2:10

“Be reconciled to God!” 2 Corinthians 5:20

Ponder this: In the person of Christ. With the authority of Christ. Ponder this - do not dismiss it. No one outside of those to whom this power has been conveyed has that authority. Christ ascended to the Father - He did not leave us orphans. Orphans have no father or mother. We have both. John 14:18, John 19:26-27

Again, this thread is being derailed. This is for Catholics, to defend their faith - not to argue European man-made nonsense.

 

[GML3]

This thread is not being derailed. This is for Catholics, to defend their faith and for Non-Catholics to defend their faith. The topic is “biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture” addressed in the Non-Catholic Religions category. Was I wrong to assume that for sake of discussion, the person who started this topic wanted Non-Catholics who believe in sola scriptura, to defend sola scriptura?