Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[Gorgias]

He never directly called me the Devil either, he just inferred it. Guess you did not see that.

LOL… no, what caught my attention was the back-and-forth about name-calling.

Does this mean that, if he inferred you were the devil, it gave you the right to call him names?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

He never directly called me the Devil either, he just inferred it. Guess you did not see that.

LOL… no, what caught my attention was the back-and-forth about name-calling.

Does this mean that, if he inferred you were the devil, it gave you the right to call him names?

No that is why I did not directly call him names. I don’t understand why you are entering into it if you don’t bother to go back and read the earlier posts. Besides, it seems like we are working it out, whatever “it” is. I am just waiting for him to confirm to me that his post #14 is to be considered a template for useful discussion format.

I have been told numerous times here that what I said isn’t true. I never thought about exclaiming that “you called me a name!”

 

[Gorgias]

Besides, it seems like we are working it out, whatever “it” is

.

 

[Chris4]

That’s very true ! Can we also include these quotes - John 21:25, 2 John 1:13, 3 John 1:13 among others ?

 

[susanlo]

susanlo:

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.

He is giving a lecture to those joining the church. His lecture is about 10 points of doctrine. Doctrine means teaching. We can all read the entire lecture, it isn’t that long. He isn’t telling them to not trust the Scriptures, just warning them that Jewish people were misinterpreting them, and they had to be knowledgeable in the Gospel in order to properly understand. Just going through quickly I see that he cites the Scriptures over 30 times in order to prove his doctrine. I don’t see anywhere that he cites the inspired oral tradition, nor does he ever instruct them to seek this source for doctrine. The only reference to tradition in this whole lecture is a quote of Colossians 2:8 on which he uses to start his lecture:
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, etc.”

(Remind me again… who developed the Doctrines of the Church? )

The Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were developed by fallible Roman Catholic men.

susanlo:

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.

I don’t know what you mean exactly by quote-mining, but I am showing some evidence of those who wrote in the first 500 years that the Scriptures were the ultimate authority.
In the section you chose he is also saying that it is necessary that the inspired Scripture harmonizes with this other teaching. (He doesn’t say that it needs to harmonize with inspired Scripture AND/OR inspired tradition.) The next sentence goes on:

And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?

Continued…

 

[susanlo]

Part 2:

His only mention of tradition is:

If on the other hand any one will accept a discussion which is in a naked unsyllogistic form, we will speak upon these points by making our study of them so far as we can follow the chain of Scriptural tradition.

Here he is using the term tradition to mean Scripture, not as a separate source of authority.

susanlo:

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.

Athanasius is listing the books he deems to be canonical in a letter. He lived from 296-373. It is thought that he wrote this letter in 367. This is before any of the church councils that are cited as being the time when the books of Scripture were canonized. I don’t think he was speaking on behalf of the entire church’s authority in this letter, just giving his teaching. Besides, his list of OT books doesn’t match the later councils. But that really isn’t the topic. The question is whether he teaches that the Scriptures are incomplete without another source of oral tradition. I don’t see that he mentions the need for any other source. He is quite clear about this.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a very apt observance susanlo. The Church did create Sacred Tradition, just as she created the NT. We understand that these two equal strands of Divine Revelation were both closed with the death of the last Apostle. Therefore “creates” in the present tense is not accurate. The living Body of Jesus applies the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures throughout the centuries, but now new public revelation is created.

The disagreement stems from what content is God-breathed AND preserved intact to this day.

Yes, I agree. Many deny that Jesus breathed upon the Church. They also deny that God has preserved His Word where He placed it in the Church.

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.

It is not necessarily accurate to say that Sacred Tradition is 'non-Scriptural", as we do see many references to Sacred Tradition in the Scriptures. At this point, there are no Sacred Traditions that have not been put into writing at some point. The main depositories of these are in the liturgies, creeds, and prayers of the Church. They are preserved in practices, rather than writing.

How does a Bishop know exactly what the Apostles taught?

It has been protected infallibly by the Holy Spirit.

Why do Eastern Orthodox Bishops cite a different Tradition than the Roman Catholic Church?

What makes you think they do? They also recognize a difference between human tradition and Sacred Tradition. In fact, Catholics have more in common with the Eastern Orthodox than anyone else BECAUSE we all adhere to the same Sacred 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?

It could not. All of what is preserved in Sacred Tradition was deposited “once for all” to the Church in the first centuries. Just as for the New Testament, nothing can be added or subtracted.

 

[JimmyDFG]

People sometimes take In John 5:39 “You search the scriptures,…” as being the Bible being the sole rule of faith. But in that verse Jesus was not saying that, he was rebuking disbelieving Jews. Jesus was pointing out to the Pharisees that the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in him.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It is not the Sacred Tradition, or immutable Word of God that “develops” but our understanding of it. All the NT and the Sacred Tradition is inspired by God. There are not new revelations after the first century.

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

Scripture has always been a primary source of authority. This does not exclude the Teaching of the Apostles as equivalent.

Scripture claims to be inspired and authoritative.

Indeed. And it is the Sacred Tradition that tells us which book.

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.

Sola Scriptura is not found in exact terms because it is not part of the Apostolic Teaching. Of course the Scriptures are inspired, and 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.

The Reformers were deeply invested in rejecting this source of authority, so that they could replace those in the Apostolic Succession with their own leadership. But this oral tradition has existed since the preaching of the Apostles.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thess. 2:15

There was no directive that the traditions that were taught by word of mouth should be ignored after the New Testament was formed.

We have to go to the Scriptures to know of Christ’s teachings.

Some people search the Scriptures, because they believe within them they will find life…

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?

No. Individual believers do, but the Church as a whole cannot. Jesus promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”. We see how this occurs at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.

 

[guanophore]

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).

I am not sure why you say “eventually got”. We can see this in the NT.

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.

You seem to think that the death penalty is somehow contrary to the Teachings of Christ. If this were true, would He not have delivered the good thief from the cross, rather than leaving him to suffer and have his legs broken?

 

[Wannano]

?????????????????????????????16 Jeepers!

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

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).

I am not sure why you say “eventually got”. We can see this in the NT

Where in the NT?

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.

You seem to think that the death penalty is somehow contrary to the Teachings of Christ. If this were true, would He not have delivered the good thief from the cross, rather than leaving him to suffer and have his legs broken?

No. 16 charcters

 

[po18guy]

I am provocative. My words, hyperbolic though they may be, are intended to inspire thought - serious, profound pondering. I pondered for years before entering the Church at age 35. It was not easy, but I had to suppress myself and trust that what Christ said, He meant.

Eternal life is not a joke. It is not a bargain we make. It is not a competition between teams. It is Truth and that is Jesus Christ. Paul spoke boldly in print and meekly in person. I am like that, but since we cannot reason face to face, I must motivate you to ponder that which you read.

“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Despite our preferences and prejudices, Christ spoke this to us. It is His divine guarantee that we are not orphans.

That the Catholic Church is the most difficult to enter, the most despised, the most abandoned and the most hated on earth reflects one fact and one fact only:

She is the One, true Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. She is Christ’s mystical Body on earth. Was He not difficult to follow, despised, abandoned and hated? What else can the Church be if it is true?

Do we forget that we must deny our very selves? That we must take up that repulsive, burdensome, hateful cross? That, only after we force ourselves to eat the dust of the earth, we are then to follow Him? Why do we reverse the order of this divine command?

The less of “me” or “I” we allow in us, the more of Him there will be.

 

[M33]

I believe that this is a useless question, as the meaning of “Sola Scriptura” is for authority, not writing purposes. The RCC Magisterium discusses Baptism, which is of course Biblical, so since they say the same thing, they are both correct. However, when discussing the process of Baptism being repentance based, the idea of infant baptism in the Magisterium is wrong, as babies can’t repent, or be repented for by parents. Sola Scriptura is the declaration that the Biblical explanation is the only true meaning.

 

[po18guy]

What? You are proving the error of SS! “Baptism is for you and your children” Cornelius and his entire household were baptized. - both from Acts.

You also seem to forget the paralytic, lowered through the roof, whose sins were forgiven because of the faith of his friends.

I doubt that you believe in baptismal regeneration. Catholics do, as the bible teaches it. As such, as a Sacrament, it cleanses of sin and leaves an indelible mark on the soul.

I can probably name the European or American man who came up with your beliefs about Baptism.

Suggestion: Since Christ did not found a protestant Church, but an Apostolic one; since he did not base anything on written words; since He taught that the Church had final authority; since Paul wrote that the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth; since Paul also wrote that heavenly authorities would know the wisdom of God through the Church, shouldn’t YOU question your beliefs first, as they occurred nowhere in Christianity until 1,500 years after Christ ascended? How can that possibly be a true doctrine?

Red flag.

 

[M33]

What does “Red flag” mean? Am I being unpleasant? I would love to discuss this with you, if you can do it sans sarcasm (that seems to be prevalent in your response. If i am mistaken, please forgive me.)

 

[M33]

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How does an infant repent? Was Luke European or American?

Apostles were eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s why Paul said he was the least, though he did see Jesus. How do you explain Apostolic succession as eyewitnesses?

 

[M33]

By the way, Catholic Church means “Universal congregation” which is not the same as Roman Catholic Church.

 

[M33]

Hey Po,
I do believe in Baptismal regeneration. John 3:3 says we MUST be born again, this opens the door for the Holy Spirit to indwell us, and by this baptism, we are regenerated daily. My beliefs come from Scripture. That is why there was a reformation. The issue here can be addressed by Erasmus, who in 1516 translated the Bible in both Latin and Greek. When they were put side by side, the Latin had many changes to it. Thus the beginning of the reformation began one year later in 1517, with Luther’s 95 thesis…

 

[po18guy]

Sorry! No, a red flag is a doctrine that was decided by disobedient, self-serving men in Europe. I will grant you that they may have been convicted of the truth of their new doctrines, but they are not a Church council as we read in Acts 15. The sudden appearance of such a doctrine should raise a red flag (i.e. caution).

Jesus founded His Church on the apostles, not any written document. Any community that is founded on the bible cannot be completely faithful to Christ, simply because they have discarded what the Apostles taught. “He who hears you hears Me.” Luke 10:16. That is absolute.

Little known fact: For this very reason, the Greek Orthodox rejected the reformation as it was occurring. When is the last time that you heard that the Greek Orthodox were the whore of Babylon? That they had man-made doctrines? They are 95% identical both liturgically and doctrinally to the Catholic.