Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[po18guy]

Au contraire! Luther rebelled because he firmly rejected the teaching of the Apostles! He then clung to the easily twisted words of scripture. He had to, because he rejected the biblical doctrine of free will. He rejected the consequences of sin. He un-did what Christ has done in the Sacraments. It was a revolution, not a reformation.

Luther pointed to sinful behavior in the Church - the responded by changing doctrine! By all credible accounts, he then lead a life of sin, believing that Christ somehow did not care about sin. That is insane.

It is a lie that Luther wanted to reform error in the Church. He rebelled, purely and completely. He formed a new religion, based on Christianity, out of his fertile and disturbed imagination. Read up on the grandfather of bible Christianity with an open heart and you will realize that he was simply flat out wrong.

 

[M33]

Cool! Love discussions. I admit that I am Bible centered. 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…

I realize that the RCC is not a fan of the reformers. The Protest of the reformers was that the RCC had veered away from the actual words of the apostles, which were originally in Greek. Remember, the CHURCH is the body of believers, who live by Scripture.

 

[M33]

With all due respect, I do believe your understandings of Luther are mistaken. I have spent many hours studying his life, and that is not the historical Luther I know. For example, his 95 thesis was in direct conflict with indulgences. His famous “stand” statement at the diet of Worms included a challenge to the church to contradict his position with Scripture, and they did not do so. (sorry, unintentional sarcasm, so i removed)

 

[Trishie]

I posted this thread in response to someone’s assertion in the middle of another thread, that there is no scriptural basis for the Catholic position. Simply, there is,
so the Non-Catholic forum seemed to be the place to share the fact for anyone’s assurance.
I naively posted it as a statement rather than to promote debate, but I now recognise that debate was inevitable.
It saddens me that some members have felt hurt and perhaps frustrated while debating such a crucial matter.
And I gently acknowledge those who have fought so hard to defend their/our position.
God bless and guide us in our debates, and may God inspire us with His truth

 

[po18guy]

It is indeed, but millions today are not even baptized - and they claim that is biblical. See the problem? You disagree, and that is good. but who decides? That is the problem.

Bible alone essentially forces one to read the bible alongside a dictionary. Does that sound like anything Christ said?

I question no bible believer’s faith or love of Christ - I’d be a fool to do so.

But Christ founded a Church with a divine guarantee that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Note: Prevail. That means that battles will take place.

It cannot be any more clear. As I mentioned each of the various Orthodox Churches have also flatly rejected the reformation and its doctrines.

So, look into the Catholic. Look into the Orthodox and you will see a Church in the fashion that Christ founded. Although almost identical, they are currently separated, but unity is being worked on as we speak.

 

[M33]

Love this response. TYVM. I was raised in the RCC and left in my late teens. I left because i kept finding differences between the Bible and the RCC dogma. The last straw for me was this… I asked my priest at my CCD classes about Math. 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. . I asked him why he was called “father”. He couldn’t answer me, so i left. Feel free to explain if u so desire. Thanks for the conversation. the decider is the Bible.

 

[M33]

I would like to encourage you too look up Luther’s life by a historian, not a Catholic or Lutheran teacher, but a historian. There are 2 Luther movies on youtube. One is from 1953 and the other is more current. Personally i found the 1953 version more accurate. Luther loved the RCC. He did not want to leave but reform the theology to be more Bible based. He is not the ogre the RCC portrays him, but he was a very intelligent and devout believer. While your at it, check out pope Leo X. Even in catholic writings, he was considered to be the most corrupt of all popes. From the evil Medici family in Florence. (He was pope when Luther lived.) I am highly encouraged by your obvious love for Christ! Bravo! I had to go on a non denominational search for truth after my disagreements with the RCC. You don’t need a dictionary or other reference work, the Holy Spirit will guide you. Keep seeking truth (and I will too) Hope we catch up with each other, soon. Maranatha!

 

[RedFan]

“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

Flip the page of your Bible to the very next verse (Acts 1:1). What does it say?

 

[po18guy]

I absolutely love the scriptures. I have 35-40 that I have collected. Read daily. Nothing is ever placed atop a bible, as nothing tops the word of God. Still - it is part of the three legged foundation of the Church: Scripture, the Apostolic teaching and the Authority given her directly by Christ via the Holy Spirit. That is why her teachings have never changed and cannot change. And that is why the ever changing world hates her.

 

[po18guy]

I know Luther’s early motivation, but there is nothing in history, in the bible or in church tradition or the teaching of the Apostles that indicates that the scriptures are “the” foundation. In fact, they are part of it, but not all.

Luther was a very psychologically unstable man - probably manic-depressive in today’s terms. He radically overturned everything. That was revolution, and politics, not sound theology.

As to the bible, it must be understood in light of what the Apostles taught. Peter noted that the scriptures were being twisted 2,000 years ago! Do you suppose that it is any better today?

Why does every single denomination disagree about what the bible means? This is worse than Sparta - it’s insanity.

 

[poche]

I really don’t try to counter sola scriptura. Instead I use the Bible to explain the truths of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Leferdion]

Do you call your dad father? I do call my dad father. Do I sin when I call my dad father? I don’t think so. The problem I have is that some of our Protestant brothers in Christ choose which biblical verses should be taken literally and which should not be to fit what they make believe of God’s will (or their will). On what criteria do you decide to take Mathew 23:9 as literal and yet reject John 6: 47-68 as literal? Is it the Holy Spirit leading you to believe that? and how do you know it is indeed the Holy Spirit? The Catholic spirituality is centered around the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in accordance with Christ’s own words in John 6 and a deeper understanding of the what God revealed to the Jews in the Old Covenant and its fulfillment in Christ in the new covenant. Yet Christ who is the very essence of the Church and why we are even here in the first place is rejected when the Eucharist is rejected. We claim our faith in Christ through grace will save us, yet we do not even have enough faith to believe that during the consecration at mass that bread and wine indeed becomes the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. We need to be more honest with ourselves and ask God in prayer to give us the grace to be led into the fullness of truth, which is indeed found in the Church, the one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church, the pillar of truth.

 

[Gorgias]

Doctrine means teaching. … I don’t see anywhere that he cites the inspired oral tradition, nor does he ever instruct them to seek this source for doctrine.

Susan,

What do you think that doctrine is? It’s the Apostolic Teaching. He’s not “citing” it because he’s actually teaching it in this lecture!

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.”

Not to be rude, but “traditions of men” isn’t what Apostolic Teaching is, either. Often, we hear this accusation from non-Catholic Christians. Here, he’s warning them against “Gentile philosophies” and “heretics”… not against the Church whose Apostolic Teachings he’s explaining.

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

And, you’re citing an example of the teaching of them as being a good thing. You’re spot on, but you just don’t recognize it!

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.)

“Inspired tradition” is the teaching.

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.

I think that’s a bit unrealistic. The purpose of his letter is to outline the Canon of Scripture, not anything else. He also doesn’t mention that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation… but you’re not claiming that “he’s quite clear about that”, are you?

 

[Wannano]

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.

You have addressed this to me so I want to acknowledge that. Thanks. I would appreciate if you would directly respond to my question in post #38. I am not meaning to be arguementative but if you want others to overlook and/or understand that you are povocative by nature and that you know you are especially in writing but humble face to face, then help us all by letting us know if your post is the style you like to receive in return.

I have never known that the RCC was the most despised etc. Church on earth. I think several other groups would say “no,no, we are!” That aspect bears no validity about the legitimacy of the group. Christians as a whole are hated and despised throughout the world. If we could quit fighting each other and the world could see we truly love each other I believe the world would respond. Do you honestly believe most non-Catholic Christians would claim they feel loved by Catholics? Of course, that can be asked in reverse, however, you are the ones who claim to be the only true followers of Christ…so you could take the lead!

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

“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

Flip the page of your Bible to the very next verse (Acts 1:1). What does it say?

Not only will I flip the page of my Bible, but I will flip the page of the Protestant ESV Bible and post the verse here:

“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.” Acts 1:1 ESV

First of all, Saint Luke writes ‘all that Jesus began to do and teach’; notice: ‘began’. Also, notice what it does not say; ‘I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach [and write everything he did for the Church to use as a sole and final rule of authority]’.

Second, the word ‘all’ in Scripture does not always mean every single thing (or every single person to have ever lived) in the sense Protestants like to claim. For example: “[A]ll have sinned” in Romans 5:12. If you were to interpret the word ‘all’ as to mean every single person to have or will have ever lived, then you would have to include Our Blessed Lord in that verse, and likewise His Blessed Mother.

 

[guanophore]

???16 Jeepers!

No.

Why do you think Jesus left the good thief, instead of taking him to paradise with him?

I do agree that the practice of killing “heretics” and “treasonous” persons who abandoned the Catholic faith was a practice that was eventually abandoned. It was more cultural/political that religious, just as the early Roman practice of killing Christians because they were believed to be “atheists” for not believing in the pantheon.

 

[guanophore]

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.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman” M33. She has 23 Rites of different languages and customs. The Latin, which is the largest here in the West, is often called Roman.

For those who have reached the age of reason, and need a “process of repentance” then yes, this is required, along with a profession of faith. Have you never read the Didache?

The idea of infant baptism is not “in the Magesterium”, except to say that the Magesterium preserves what we have received from the Apostles. It was handed down to the successors of the Apostles as part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. We cannot change anything that was given to us by the Apostles.

Babies have no need to repent, as they do not have the capacity to commit sin. We baptize them to remove their original sin, based on the profession of faith by their parents/Godparents. Baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom of God.

Sola Scriptura is not the “declaration that the Biblical explanation is the only true meaning”. If this were true, then we would not have different SS groups dialectically opposing one another. The fact is that there are as many “meanings”(interpretations) as there are belly buttons. Catholics interpret whole households getting baptized as including infants and children, but you do not. Some sects say women should wear a head covering, others do not. Some say that women can be ordained, others do not.

Scripture cannot be an 'authority" because authority requires a PERSON. Authority involves the exercise of will and intellect, which the Scriptures, by nature, do not possess. They are Authorative, certainly, but were never meant to be used outside of the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[po18guy]

As to prior posts, If I was not serious, I would not have posted. Could it just be that you have take offense where none was intended? Where none indeed existed? Rather, a discussion, a dialog is based on pondering the points made, as human emotion clouds the message - I am not immune to that. Please focus on the content and address that, if you would be so kind.

Christians are hated in proportion to the truth they hold.

The Catholic Church is so clearly and obviously the most hated on earth, that I do not understand how someone could deny this. Google up the “Penal times” in England. Catholicism was banned and priests and bishops hunted down and murdered by royal warrant! Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher and hundreds of others. Priests and bishops rounded up in Mexico and executed after the government banned the faith - less than 100 years ago! Look up Blessed Miguel Pro whose last words were “Viva Cristo Rey!” Martyrs!

There have been American martyrs. Birmingham Alabama in the 20th century! . Churches burned - even in über-liberal Washington state. Look it up. Catholics, from laity to Bishops in prison right now in China and Viet Nam. Imprisoned, tortured and killed for their faith. This was the first 300+ years of the Church, as well.

The Catholic Church not persecuted? Honestly?

Protestant missionaries sent to Catholic lands. You call that love? It is at best ignorance, at worst malice. You have a better explanation? Mormon missionaries, JWs, Seventh-Day Adventists targeting Catholic nations. That is the classical, Christ-given definition of hatred. Maybe not anger or physical violence, but moral and spiritual violence. Egotistical men versus Christ’s Church. Read John 15 - it was prophesied by Christ and expected. To deny this is to live in an illusion, is it not?

Serious points to ponder.

 

[guanophore]

There is nothing sarcastic in this response.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Peter was addressing the crowds assembled for Pentecost. Maybe some brought their infants/children, who entered the waters of Baptism with them, but not necessarily. Have you ever read the Didache?

Why are you asking if Luke was European or American? Do you not see that Luke records infants/children coming to Jesus, or being brough to Baptism?

Paul did see Jesus.

The successors of the Apostles were not all eyewitesses of Jesus.

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

You are right. The CC is not “Roman”.

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.

No, M##, this is NOT why there was a Reformation. This is a Catholic belief, and there fore, would not cause 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…

No, not so much.