Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[guanophore]

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…

You do understand that these duties, to teach, rebuke, correct, and train, were given to PEOPLE, not written words, right?

The Protest of the reformers was that the RCC had veered away from the actual words of the apostles, which were originally in Greek.

Not really, M33. In fact, Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. Matthew’s Gospel seems to be the only one written in Aramaic, but this was the original language of all the Apostles, who were Jews.

Remember, the CHURCH is the body of believers, who live by Scripture.

This is a deficient understanding of “church”. Christians are not “people of the book”. (except those who have departed from the Apostolic faith).

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)

Most of the Theses had nothing to do with indulgences. And the reason the Church did not enter into a battle over the private interpretation of Scripture is the same reason we do not do so today. Jesus did not write, but He founded a Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The scriptures, produced by that Church, were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

 

[po18guy]

Best of luck. We might need a sledge hammer to break that brick wall. I hope and pray that I am sincerely wrong. I wish all would entertain that thought.

 

[guanophore]

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

Where do you get these ideas, susanlo? The Doctrines of the faith were handed down through the Aposltes. They are part of the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith. Catholics believe that the public revelation by God of Himself was closed wtih the death fo the last Aposlte. Nothing can be “developed by fallible men” or added to the Scriptures. The revelation was closed!

I am showing some evidence of those who wrote in the first 500 years that the Scriptures were the ultimate authority.

Definitely Scripture is Authorative, and along with the Sacred Tradition, is one of the two intertwined strands of Divine Revelation. The two Sources work together. Since they both come from God, they cannot contradict each other. The Fathers study the development of doctrine to assure that our understanding of what the Apostles taught is consistent with these two strands.

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

The difference, susanlo, is how we INTERPRET the Scriptures. Catholics understand them in the light of Sacred Tradition (what the Apostles taught). The children of the Reformation interpret them in the light of Reformation Theology, which is anti-Catholic.

The question is whether he teaches that the Scriptures are incomplete without another source of oral tradition.

The Scriptures are complete as God intended them to be. But Jesus did not write, He formed a Church. He gave that Church the Seat ofMoses(teaching authority). The Doctrine was whole and entire before a word of it was ever written into what we now have as the New Testament. That complete Gospel did not somehow vanish after some of it was written. The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, nor was it meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

“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

The Teaching of the Apostles was both written, and oral, and both were/are considered equal.

 

[susanlo]

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!

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.

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!

There is a difference between a doctrine(body of teaching) which is based on basic Biblical principles and a Doctrine that was formally added and brings in ideas and teachings that were not expressed clearly in the Bible or early Christianity. I don’t see where Cyril of Jerusalem is creating a new teaching because of a disagreement in the church. He is teaching Christianity 101 to converts and using Scripture as his reference. He even instructs them not to believe what even he teaches unless it is proven from the scriptures. “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.” Where is there room for the additional teachings from the inspired oral tradition that Cyril of Jerusalem - as a Bishop with Apostolic succession - had access to? Why would we in 2018 need to go against this advice and accept things that are not proven from Scripture?

“Inspired tradition” is the teaching.

He is calling the Scriptures the inspired teaching. It is a conversation about the soul that he is having with Basil the Great’s sister about whether the soul continues after the body dies. They are not referencing an inspired oral tradition in any way. I don’t know what you mean at all. Where did you get that idea?

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?

He says that these books are the only source for the doctrine of godliness. He is clear about that. He doesn’t elaborate on this doctrine. He is only sharing where it is found in its entirety.

 

[susanlo]

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!

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not agree with the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Primacy of Peter, original sin, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation… Both churches cite Apostolic Tradition as the source of their beliefs. Both churches recognize each other as having valid Apostolic succession. Which set of Bishops maintained the correct Traditions about these subjects?

 

[guanophore]

Which set of Bishops maintained the correct Traditions about these subjects?

A question well worthy of a thread. The point is that despite differences in some other areas, all Churches founded by the Apostles accept the reality of Sacred Tradition. So those who adhere to Sola Scriptura do not have an argument with the CC only.

 

[susanlo]

Well I feel like the claim that Sacred Tradition has been preserved without error with proper Apostolic succession is unfounded. If any of these topics were to be debated by a Roman Catholic scholar and an Eastern Orthodox scholar, they could pull out the Scriptures and read the same exact verses and text and analyze this teaching. When it comes to Tradition they can not do this. There is no record of exactly what the Apostles taught that was not put into inspired Scripture.

For one church’s Sacred Tradition to be inerrant, that means the other church’s Sacred Tradition must have erred. And if Apostolic succession can lead to errant Sacred Tradition, than how can Sacred Tradition be protected from error?

 

[guanophore]

Well I feel like the claim that Sacred Tradition has been preserved without error with proper Apostolic succession is unfounded.

Of course you must feel this way. Otherwise a position of SS could not be upheld.

But such a position defies what God has said about His Word.

“so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” Isa. 55;11

If any of these topics were to be debated by a Roman Catholic scholar and an Eastern Orthodox scholar, they could pull out the Scriptures and read the same exact verses and text and analyze this teaching.

No. The Apostolic Churches do not extract their doctrines from the pages of Scripture as do the children of the Reformers. They receive the faith through the paradosis. “Proof texting” is a Reformation innovation not found in the ancient Church.

For one church’s Sacred Tradition to be inerrant, that means the other church’s Sacred Tradition must have erred. And if Apostolic succession can lead to errant Sacred Tradition, than how can Sacred Tradition be protected from error?

I think you are mixing apples and pizza’s here susanlo. First of all, the gift of infallibility is a negative gift, which means that the Church is prevented from falling into error. Second, Sacred Tradition cannot 'err" because it comes from the Holy Spirit, who is inerrant. People can err in their understanding of it.

Apostolic succession is not the preserver of inerrancy. The Holy Spirit is the one who preserves the Word of God where He has sent it, so that it does not return to Him void. The successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, are charged with preserving and teaching the Word of God.

 

[Chris4]

We can also look at John 5:39 " You diligently study the Scriptures BECAUSE YOU THINK that by them you possess eternal life. these are the Scriptures that ’ testify’ about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."( NIV). NLT use ‘point’ in place of ‘testify’. ESV - bear. God is far much bigger than Scripture. He can’t be contained inside there. We need to raise our eyes occasionally from Scripture (the Sign Post) to contemplate our destination - Him in his Majesty.

 

[mcq72]

Apostolic succession is not the preserver of inerrancy.

Poor Iranaeus then

 

[guanophore]

Poor Iranaeus then

Inerrancy is preserved by the Holy Spirit. He does work through the Apostolic Succession, but the point I was making is that it is not dependent upon fallible human persons. It occurs through divine intervention.

 

[guanophore]

There is a difference between a doctrine(body of teaching) which is based on basic Biblical principles and a Doctrine that was formally added and brings in ideas and teachings that were not expressed clearly in the Bible or early Christianity.

I agree. But there are two problems here. Since the children of the Reformation interpret the Bible through the doctrines created during the REformation, they do not understand what is written the way we do. We read the Scritures through the lens of the faith we received from the Apostles, so it is different. Secondly, we believe that the deposit of faith was whole and entire at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added, or subtracted. The children of the Reformation have been separated from the SAcred Tradition for 500 + years, and usually have no clue what the early Christians believed. That being the case, when the Church proclaims the perpetual virginity of Mary, it may seem like something “new” that was not previously believed, but this is not the case.

 

[susanlo]

I agree. But there are two problems here. Since the children of the Reformation interpret the Bible through the doctrines created during the REformation, they do not understand what is written the way we do. We read the Scritures through the lens of the faith we received from the Apostles, so it is different. Secondly, we believe that the deposit of faith was whole and entire at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added, or subtracted. The children of the Reformation have been separated from the SAcred Tradition for 500 + years, and usually have no clue what the early Christians believed. That being the case, when the Church proclaims the perpetual virginity of Mary, it may seem like something “new” that was not previously believed, but this is not the case.

The Apostles left their teaching in writings inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is the source of doctrine. What pieces of Sacred Tradition does a Catholic Priest know about that a Lutheran or Baptist minister could not know about? Are you claiming that a special “lens” of wisdom is passed at ordination? Or are there teachings in the Catholic library that are only known by ordained Catholics? Why are only Catholics aware of what the early Christians believed?

The thing is that there are a lot of things that Roman Catholics proclaim as doctrines necessary for salvation that the earliest Christians had absolutely no idea about. The first few centuries of Christian writings reflect a lack of knowledge of the Doctrine of Original Sin (some teach some very different versions regarding some type of ancestral sin, etc. but nobody seems to understand what Augustine later developed). Then when Augustine puts forth the Doctrine of Original Sin in the 5th century, he clearly teaches that it comes from Adam, and that is why Jesus who is the only one without an earthly father is the only person born to a woman to not have Original Sin. Now Catholics are taught that during the 1st century the Apostles taught that Mary was born free of this Original Sin, but apparently all of the Christian writers forgot about it for 500-1000 years. I just don’t buy that. It was obviously added later. Why would a 21st century Catholic need to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be saved, while Augustine didn’t believe this yet he has been determined to be a saint? We could do this same thing for so many other Catholic concepts.

If I want to know what the early Christians believed, I will go to the Scriptures and the early writings. I don’t feel that what was being taught in 1500 AD is a good indicator of what was believed in 150 AD.

 

[rose321]

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.

Respectfully opinion.
He who has an ear, ought to hear> The Spirit, is telling us to listen and pay attention to what the Spirit is saying to each of theses Churchs, is very important for those who join to or belong too? pondering is all.

Is the Spirit rather judging, individually each of the 7 churches?
Is the Spirit instead rather>judging, rebuking and pointing out each church the errors of their way, those who rule over them,not about the laity is it?
The Spirit seems to be pleased with only one church, why??
And each Church its Name >>when broken down >has a meaning also defines who they are? Names are very important with God, Names in ancient times have meaning and also Names define ones mission and task given?

The Spirit seems to be speaking to>> each Church and those ( individual Bishops) who rule over them? In those ancient times after Jesus death, early beginnings>>>no Bishop over ruled another Bishop ( Church), thus the saying Bishops among Bishops.

There was many sects of Christianity taking place in early beginnings were there not? St Paul himself was dealing also with such, was he not? Why St Paul is writing letters all had different issues, in teaching also? Peace

 

[guanophore]

The Apostles left their teaching in writings inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, but there was never any effort to commit a complete compendium of the faith to writing, nor an expectation that those writings would be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

This is the source of doctrine.

Yes, for those who are separated from Sacred Tradition, reliance on the portion that is in writing is the preferred source. The greatest problem is that everyone must interpret and apply what is written, and there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons!

 

[Vonsalza]

Excellent post.

I’m still waiting for Paul’s missing epistle to Laodicea (one of many, I’m sure) to finally surface.

 

[guanophore]

“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.” Where is there room for the additional teachings from the inspired oral tradition that Cyril of Jerusalem - as a Bishop with Apostolic succession - had access to? Why would we in 2018 need to go against this advice and accept things that are not proven from Scripture?

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.

. I don’t see where Cyril of Jerusalem is creating a new teaching because of a disagreement in the church. He is teaching Christianity 101 to converts and using Scripture as his reference.

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.

He is calling the Scriptures the inspired teaching.

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

It is a conversation about the soul that he is having with Basil the Great’s sister about whether the soul continues after the body dies. They are not referencing an inspired oral tradition in any way. I don’t know what you mean at all. Where did you get that idea?

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.

 

[guanophore]

He says that these books are the only source for the doctrine of godliness. He is clear about that. He doesn’t elaborate on this doctrine. He is only sharing where it is found in its entirety.

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.

You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance 2 Tim 3: 10

Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me–put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. Phil. 4: 9

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.

He is only sharing where it is found in its entirety.

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!

 

[mcq72]

The children of the Reformation have been separated from the SAcred Tradition for 500 + years, and usually have no clue what the early Christians believed.

Perhaps the children are ignorant of some history, but certainly the Reformers were not, and actually knew as much as any Catholic at the time, and some were clergy, or expressed views of some Catholic clergy theologians on some issues of their times.

Yes, we do not have a Catholic lens thru which to see, as you do not have an Orthodox or Protestant lens. Dont know of any lens that does not seek to be, and claims to be, apostolic.

Reformation did not occur in a vacuum, and hence anything deemed “new” was a counter to something also that evolved, that could also be deemed “new”.

Yes the apostles left full deposit, but the Reformation, and Orthodoxy, is simply a further evolving from that which has been evolving from the beginning.

The more one can see the central thread, the better one’s lens.

Jesus, the ultimate reformer, lens, was also thought to be unorthodox, saying things anew, even disconnected from founding forefathers.

 

[Gorgias]

Well I feel like the claim that Sacred Tradition has been preserved without error with proper Apostolic succession is unfounded.

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!

If any of these topics were to be debated by a Roman Catholic scholar and an Eastern Orthodox scholar, they could pull out the Scriptures and read the same exact verses and text and analyze this teaching. When it comes to Tradition they can not do this. There is no record of exactly what the Apostles taught that was not put into inspired Scripture.

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!

For one church’s Sacred Tradition to be inerrant, that means the other church’s Sacred Tradition must have erred.

“Infallible”, not “inerrant.” But yes… now you’re seeing it! If one ecclesial community says “X” and another says “not X”, then one must be speaking in error!

And if Apostolic succession can lead to errant Sacred Tradition, than how can Sacred Tradition be protected from error?

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’!