Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[whyeyeman]

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:39-40

 

[Zaccheus]

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

Yes it is. Scripture is inspired of God.
That does not mean that Scripture is the only thing inspired of God.
Christ told us (in Scripture) that the Holy Spirit would teach and guide us. He told us true: the Holy Spirit has taught and guided us and does so still.

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?

Yes you are and yes they were.
And the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church down through the centuries.

 

[Wannano]

GML3:

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

Yes it is. Scripture is inspired of God.
That does not mean that Scripture is the only thing inspired of God.
Christ told us (in Scripture) that the Holy Spirit would teach and guide us. He told us true: the Holy Spirit has taught and guided us and does so still.

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?

Yes you are and yes they were.
And the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church down through the centuries.

Yes, thank you. I think I am safe in saying that the Holy Spirit will not counter what Jesus did teach as recorded in the Bible. Am I right in saying also that the Holy Spirit guides you and me as individual Christians if we allow Him to? Same for the Church?

 

[susanlo]

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.

What is the source of Tradition? I thought that the official Roman Catholic position was that Sacred Tradition was the teaching of the Apostles that did not make it into Scripture, but was passed on orally. Maybe that’s what you mean, but this statement seems to imply that the Church creates Tradition. That is what those who believe in sola scriptura believe about tradition. And that’s exactly what it comes down to - the source of Tradition. The disagreement stems from what content is God-breathed AND preserved intact to this day.

I would find Tradition so much easier to understand if there was some point in time over the last ~2000 years when someone compiled the non-Scriptural yet “oral God-breathed teachings of the Apostles” in writing. How does a Bishop know exactly what the Apostles taught? Why do Eastern Orthodox Bishops cite a different Tradition than the Roman Catholic Church? As far as I know, all Christians have a nearly identical New Testament, but Tradition is quite varied. Which Church has maintained the true Apostolic Tradition?
How can it be that teachings can be declared as authoritative and binding on all believers at a council that occured long after the first century while this binding “Tradition” was unknown to the esteemed Christian writers of the first 500 years? How can we have Traditions that (1) developed over the years (2) are inspired by God (3) yet there are not new revelations after the end of the first century? I don’t know how to make sense of it. Maybe I still misunderstand the whole concept.

 

[EricF]

This isn’t from Jesus in the Bible, but it’s applicable here. I just heard Patrick Madrid on the radio quote St. Cyprian of Carthage, “You cannot claim God as Father if you deny Church as mother.”

 

[Reuben_J]

I am online so I saw this post. Thanks for the reply. I am not as good in explaining so this is a cursory one.

Yes, you are right that Tradition come from the apostles, written or unwritten. And there are Tradition that comes from the Church - a good example is the canon of the Bible.

Remembering that the Catholic Church belief is supported by a three legged stool of - Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium (Teaching Office). I would prefer them in that order though they are of equally important for the deposit of faith.

If you see them as necessary for the preservance of the deposit of faith as how they function for the Church, then their roles are self-explained.

Actually much of the Sacred Tradition are written if we consider the Church as a whole. This is seen together in the usage of Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium in the practices and doctrines of the Church. An example would be the Eucharist.

Without the Tradition, we would not believe the Eucharist as we do today.

Theologians would say doctrines are developed, not added, over the years of Christendom. I won’t go into that for fear I might use the wrong words but we can see Tradition is also involved directly in this too.

Again, the example of the Eucharist. In itself, nothing has changed in principle and the liturgy but the appearance of the mass may. It was celebrated perhaps privately by the apostles (Acts) but time changed and so its appearance today as the number of Christians grow.

Bottom line would be as initially said, Tradition came from the apostles and developed. So yes, it came from the Apostles and the Church.

As for compiling the Tradition in written form (probably what you mean it to itemise them), which is the non-Catholics argument, and which I can understand why. Personally I would say, by doing that it will just neutralize Tradition as an organic breathe of God of one of the three legs of the stool.

IOW, it does not apply. The Catholic Church is an uninterrupted line from the apostles. She has no problem of losing the truth.

You compared the Orthodox and Catholic, which ironically supports Tradition in its form (which comes from the apostles, twelve of them maybe). We can also say we have four Gospels from the apostles instead of just one.

 

[susanlo]

You are once again defending the indefensible. NO ONE claimed bible alone until 1500s Europe.

There is actually a lot of evidence that the early church used the Bible as their primary source of authority.
Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lecture #4
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

1. Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Gregory of Nyssa - Of the Soul and the Resurrection
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm

I mean that of affirming what we please; 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.

Athanasius - Letter 39
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm
After listing the canonical books:

1. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘You err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me Matthew 22:29; John 5:39.

If Christ established bible alone, why does the bible not SAY so?

Scripture claims to be inspired and authoritative. Jesus quotes the Old Testament as an authoritative source and expects His followers to know and obey the Scriptures. I am not familiar with any place where Jesus or an Apostle quote the inspired oral Tradition. The only reference that I know that Jesus made to the Jewish Tradition of the day is negative.
Matthew 15:

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’

The term sola scriptura is not found in exact terms, but it is implied that Scripture is God’s inspired word and is therefore authoritative. There are no claims that there is a separate source of oral Tradition that is passed on orally and protected from error. I don’t know the earliest time that this claim was made.

 

[susanlo]

Did Christ preach in 1500s Europe?

No. We have to go to the Scriptures to know of Christ’s teachings.

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.

What Bible passage are you referring to with: “witnesses who do not agree!”
There is quite a lot of disagreement in the Bible.

 

[Zaccheus]

Am I right in saying also that the Holy Spirit guides you and me as individual Christians if we allow Him to? Same for the Church?

The Holy Spirit guides us, in large part by guiding the Church, which then teaches us. Individuals can receive guidance from the Holy Spirit, but that does not replace the teaching role of the Church.
If I wish to know what to do in the situation I face right now, I might pray for guidance and hope to receive it. If I wish to know (for example) whether Purgatory is real, then I consult the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, which is guided and taught by the Holy Spirit.

 

[po18guy]

Other than calling names, do you have a response?

Catholics hear the “arrogance” charge frequently. That, my dear fellow poster, is confidence. Sorry if it is received wrongly.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Am I right in saying also that the Holy Spirit guides you and me as individual Christians if we allow Him to? Same for the Church?

The Holy Spirit guides us, in large part by guiding the Church, which then teaches us. Individuals can receive guidance from the Holy Spirit, but that does not replace the teaching role of the Church.
If I wish to know what to do in the situation I face right now, I might pray for guidance and hope to receive it. If I wish to know (for example) whether Purgatory is real, then I consult the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, which is guided and taught by the Holy Spirit.

I really appreciate the tone with which you speak. The question I have is…has the Church ever misread the Holy Spirit or ever refused to directly follow the teaching of the Holy Spirit? There are so many ways to interpret some things. For example: I have read that the early church took the non-resistant teachings of Christ very literally. They refused military service and lived lives displaying the teaching of Jesus to turn the other cheek and love your enemies. Certainly not acceptable mainstream thought. Sometime later, the Church has adopted the “just war theory” and eventually comes to the place where participation in war is justified if ones country determines it is. The Church eventually got to the place where the killing of human beings was a desirable method of purging itself of heretical thought (many claim the Church never killed any person but rather just identified the heretic to the civil authorities). If the Church truly followed the leading of the Holy Spirit during these times of murder, one is left to ponder why the Holy Spirit countered the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Bible. Was adopting the mindset of the world at that time considered “development?” So very interesting now are the apologies coming from the Church for the actions taken in earlier centuries. This logically seems like the voice of the Holy Spirit. So very interesting as well is hearing Pope Francis denouncing the just war theory and suggesting it has no place in the life of a Christian. Catholics rely on the Church to give them the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It takes great faith to believe it is always reliable.

 

[Wannano]

Other than calling names, do you have a response?

Catholics hear the “arrogance” charge frequently. That, my dear fellow poster, is confidence. Sorry if it is received wrongly.

Show me the names I called you. If you hear the charge of “arrogance” frequently and you confidently believe it is perceived wrongly and only is a result of your bloated confidence you may want to adopt the conversing methods of those Catholics who exemplify Christlike attitudes.

 

[Gorgias]

Show me the names I called you. If you hear the charge of “arrogance” frequently and you confidently believe it is perceived wrongly and only is a result of your bloated confidence you may want to adopt the conversing methods of those Catholics who exemplify Christlike attitudes.

As if “arrogant”, “bloated confidence”, and “un-Christlike attitude” isn’t name-calling?

 

[Gorgias]

There is actually a lot of evidence that the early church used the Bible as their primary source of authority.

Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lecture #4

Skip back about 15 paragraphs, to right at the beginning of the lecture: it’s not smooth speech ('cause anyone, good or evil, can speak sweetly); it’s not Divine Scriptures ('cause anyone can “miserably misinterpret” them, “studying them from childhood to old age” and yet remaining “ignorant”). Rather, it’s the knowledge of doctrines. (Remind me again… who developed the Doctrines of the Church? )

1. For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines concerning God, and yet to be a vile fornicator? And again, what profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. Colossians 2:8 The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey drops from a harlot’s lips Proverbs 5:3: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to old age , and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent , disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord says, Take heed lest any man mislead you. Matthew 24:4 This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it.
2. But before delivering you over to the Creed , I think it is well to make use at present of a short summary of necessary doctrines

Gregory of Nyssa - Of the Soul and the Resurrection

It seems you’re quote-mining here. Gregory is talking about how one might come to an understanding of the soul. He’s just asserted that Greek philosophy is insufficient in coming to such an understanding. Therefore, he turns to the Scriptures to answer this question:

for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.

Athanasius - Letter 39

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

After listing the canonical books:

You realize that he’s upholding the Church’s act of naming the Canon, right? That’s an authoritative (and non-Scriptural) act. By its very nature, it refutes sola scriptura.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Show me the names I called you. If you hear the charge of “arrogance” frequently and you confidently believe it is perceived wrongly and only is a result of your bloated confidence you may want to adopt the conversing methods of those Catholics who exemplify Christlike attitudes.

As if “arrogant”, “bloated confidence”, and “un-Christlike attitude” isn’t name-calling?

Well this is interesting. I never called him “arrogant” or “un-Christlike”. I was referring to what he was displaying. He never directly called me the Devil either, he just inferred it. Guess you did not see that.

 

[Zaccheus]

The question I have is…has the Church ever misread the Holy Spirit or ever refused to directly follow the teaching of the Holy Spirit?

Churchmen have done so, sometimes in large numbers. There have been corrupt priests, bishops, even wicked individual Popes. There have been times of shameful practices such as the selling of indulgences.

The Church as a whole, no. The Church as a whole has never fallen to teaching or practicing evil doctrines.

 

[po18guy]

I am the worst sinner here, and am not even the shadow of Saint Paul’s little fingernail. He, being confident in, and boasting of the Lord, was also accused of arrogance.

Our Lord used hyperbole to make His points.

I compare myself to neither - only to their methods.

To those who are affronted, instead of taking offense, or of diverting the discussion, pondering and thought-provoking responses would be helpful.

 

[Wannano]

To those who are affronted, instead of taking offense, or of diverting the discussion, pondering and thought-provoking responses would be helpful.

I agree with you on this. Are you suggesting that your post 14 could be used as an example of helpful posting?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

The question I have is…has the Church ever misread the Holy Spirit or ever refused to directly follow the teaching of the Holy Spirit?

Churchmen have done so, sometimes in large numbers. There have been corrupt priests, bishops, even wicked individual Popes. There have been times of shameful practices such as the selling of indulgences.

The Church as a whole, no. The Church as a whole has never fallen to teaching or practicing evil doctrines.

It is difficult for me to separate the two.

 

[AugustTherese]

No. We have to go to the Scriptures to know of Christ’s teachings.

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.” John 20:30 ESV

“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25 ESV