Biblical quotes from Jesus which counter sola scripture

[theCardinalbird]

And??? does that mean others have it down pat , listen to them ? Does it suggest the need for a magisterium, or an apostle or successor or any specific office holder to be infallible for the reader ? Peter does not suggest any such thing.

The Bible shows there is an apostolic succession, it does show that the Church of God will be aided by Christ and will not be prevailed by the powers of darkness. It shows a visible Church that believes in one truth that is taught by the leaders of this Church. Scripture reiterates that there is one flock one shepherd. We must listen to the Church and how its leaders interpret scripture because personal interpretations by the simple laity can go in different directions and obscure truth. If Christ said the powers of darkness will not prevail against the Church then what does that mean? The Bible was put together by the Church are you saying that it wasn’t aided in doing this? If Christ promised to protect his Church, his visible Church, then I would head their words. After all personal interpretation was condemned by Peter:

2 Peter 1:20-21 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus gave primacy to Peter to be the leader of the Church. The early Church Fathers even say this. The Church was even given the ministry of reconciliation. How does that work if there is no one Church?

 

[theCardinalbird]

Furthermore:

Does it suggest the need for a magisterium, or an apostle or successor or any specific office holder to be infallible for the reader ? Peter does not suggest any such thing

Tradition has always held, before this Sola Scriptura that, there was a succession. Even the Bible reiterates this.

Acts 1:15-26 New International Version (NIV)
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[a] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[c]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

 

[mcq72]

Acts 8:30-31 … guidance needed to interpret scriptures.

Heb 5:12 … need to be taught.

No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest…heb 8

But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.Job 32

of course you have teachers and preachers and prophets, but they teach and preach and prophesy and ruled by the by the Word of God, and any magisterium, council or decree or tradition is ruled by the written Word.

 

[theCardinalbird]

quick question. Do you subscribe to Sola Scriptura?

 

[mcq72]

Jesus gave primacy to Peter to be the leader of the Church. The early Church Fathers even say this. The Church was even given the ministry of reconciliation. How does that work if there is no one Church?

this does not address the scripture you quoted , of some writ being difficult to understand, or the rule of Writ…my post did address/recognize role of teachers /church/holy spirit, and of the believer…(the believer is what Peter was addressing)…does Peter state to listen to his successor when difficulty arise ? or does he state that difficulty will arise(false teachers,doctrines), even from those i may have baptized, even ordained (false teachers coming the church from within) , but apostolic writ can be understood if you have a right heart, and cling to the real mccoy, the apostles and their writ.

As to reconciliation, it is also every believer’s responsibility …first go to your brethren to be reconciled, then take another brethren with you , and finally , take the matter before the congregation.

By the way, SS does NOT take away the authority of offices , or of the church, and for sure all must be “biblical” today (be in accordance with writ),even traditional though more problematic.

 

[rcwitness]

The Traditions which are affirmed by the authority of the See of Rome are binding over all. Peter was given the ability to confirm the faithful. Certain traditions are good in local places, but if they directly contradict or clash with the See of Peter, then they should give way to the greater Tradition.

Why did St Paul go to him in Jerusalem to stay with him for two weeks? Paul wanted to hear the absolute Teaching of the Church, in order to carry on with his mission. He needed the Church to be on the same page as what he knew Jesus revealed to him.

How much more do we need this same confirmation, now that we are farther removed from the Apostles?

How much did we need this confirmation in order to be confident in the canon of Scripture?

How did Jesus instruct us to have the same mind and judgment, which St. Paul stressed many times? He told us to “take it to the Church”.

Paul took it to the Church, because he needed to have the support of the Church to admonish anyone who tried to restrict the Gentiles from freely receiving God’s blessings and adoption, apart from the Mosaic Law.

 

[mcq72]

Tradition has always held, before this Sola Scriptura that, there was a succession. Even the Bible reiterates this.

tradition must harmonize, or have as a “rule”, the deposit of faith that was apostolically laid and cemented by their writ.

Succession is part of that, though the application and interpretation of that has evolved . Some are stricter in biblical adherence than others, and some relying on tradition more, but all trying to be “biblical”.

 

[mcq72]

quick question. Do you subscribe to Sola Scriptura?

if need be quick , then I do not subscribe to SS as seen by CC, nor do I subscribe to tradition as seen by CC (from whence came those famous words sola scriptura (a reaction to tradition), …not the first time though, in intent).

 

[mcq72]

Paul took it to the Church, because he needed to have the support of the Church to admonish anyone who tried to restrict the Gentiles from freely receiving God’s blessings and adoption, apart from the Mosaic Law.

Hi rc, now that is the diamond of your post !

 

[Gorgias]

How do you explain the Bishops with valid succession in the Eastern Orthodox Church that teach things that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church?

Ahh… now I understand. That’s a valid objection!

However, I think you’re conflating two distinct issues: “valid Apostolic Succession” and “the authority of the Magisterium.” They really are different concepts, and understanding the difference allows us to recognize that the conflict you posit does not, in fact, exist.

Apostolic succession speaks to the unbroken line of bishops from the present back all the way to the apostles. As (validly ordained) bishops, they have this continuity of apostolic ministry that has its origin with Christ’s teaching and His institution of His Church. Apostolic succession does have a role in the discussion of the Church’s doctrinal teaching, but succession is only a part of that discussion. So, we would say that bishops in the various Catholic rites (Latin or Oriental) have valid apostolic succession. We would also say that their counterparts in the Orthodox Churches likewise share in valid apostolic succession.

The notion of the “magisterium”, on the other hand, is the notion of the “teaching authority of the Church.” That teaching authority belongs to “the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (CCC, #85). Therefore, if there is any bishop who is not in communion with the Catholic Church, then he is not part of the magisterium. (That could be a bishop from a different Church (e.g., one of the Orthodox Churches), or a Catholic bishop who is out of communion with the Church (this has happened a number of times throughout the past 2000 years).)

Therefore:

• although apostolic succession is part of what defines who is a validly ordained bishop,
• and although validly ordained bishops make up the magisterium
• and it is through the magisterium that the Deposit of Faith (including both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) is passed down…

… not all validly ordained bishops are part of the magisterium. Therefore, the bishops of the various Orthodox Churches are not part of the magisterium, and we would not assert that they teach Sacred Tradition.

In other words, the situation you propose (namely, two fonts of Sacred Tradition which are in conflict with each other) does not exist. There is one magisterium, and its teachings are constant and true. Yes, there are others – outside the magisterium – who teach different doctrines, but the Catholic Church does not hold to their teachings. Rather, we hold to the teachings which come to us from Christ, through His Church, and through the magisterium which He provides us in order to know the Truth.

susanlo:

Churches that claim to have a special “Sacred Tradition” use it to come to 2 different conclusions. So why would I trust what one church says is authoritative teaching because it is “Sacred Tradition?”

As we established in an earlier post, if one Church says “X” and another says “not X”, then one must be in error. I’ll stick with the Church that Jesus founded through Peter.

 

[mcq72]

Barnabas, Gregory of Nyssa, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Dioysius, Athanasius, Cyril Chrysostom, Augustine are some folks who seem to advocate some assemblage of SS, despite acknowledging role of offices and the church etc, which is still fine with SS, or the rule of writ for all parties.

Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers

 

[theCardinalbird]

this does not address the scripture you quoted

I know. Those two parts were different points.

of some writ being difficult to understand, or the rule of Writ…my post did address/recognize role of teachers /church/holy spirit,

and what did you recognize about the Church? Are you saying we should follow Sola Scriptura?

does Peter state to listen to his successor when difficulty arise ? or does he state that difficulty will arise(false teachers, doctrines), even from those i may have baptized, even ordained (false teachers coming the church from within) , but apostolic writ can be understood if you have a right heart, and cling to the real mccoy, the apostles and their writ.

The Church is meant to help ease the controversy, if controversy should arise. Remember how in the Acts of the Apostles, when the question of circumcision was posed to the Apostles? The faithful were divided on this subject. In the end it was the Apostles who made the decision, whether or not the faithful were to be circumcised still. These people had good hearts and yet they were divided on what the truth was. How can it be said that as long as one has a good heart, the Apostolic writ can be understood, and the truth be known? There are many Protestant denominations who claim they have the right interpretation, yet they differ in their meanings. can it be said that they all have evil hearts?

By the way, SS does NOT take away the authority of offices , or of the church, and for sure all must be “biblical” today (be in accordance with writ),even traditional though more problematic.

Interesting. what do you see the office of the Pope as? And also please note that it is scriptural. The authority of Peter as the chief Apostle is real and scriptural and is imbedded in the earliest traditions.

 

[theCardinalbird]

As to reconciliation, it is also every believer’s responsibility …first go to your brethren to be reconciled, then take another brethren with you , and finally , take the matter before the congregation.

Matthew:
16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Apostles were given the power of binding and loosing sins

Here is what Saint Paul says:
17 If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new.
18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.
19 For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation.
20 For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God.

Also Christ gave the Apostles power to forgive sins. He didn’t give it to all Christians (not that you insinuated that, this is to show the importance of the Apostolic Succession):

20 And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Also here are some quotes I think you will find interesting:

“f he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18:15-18).

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

“If I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame” (1 Cor. 10:8).

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess. 2:13).

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

“f I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14-15).

 

[theCardinalbird]

Also the Bible is not the only authority, it is side by side with tradition

 

[mcq72]

The Church is meant to help ease the controversy, if controversy should arise.

I should hope so , and that by being “biblical”, or let writ rule, or rule by writ.

Is there really anything new under the sun, that writ can not shed light on, as used by either an individual, or the church at large, and enabled by the Holy Ghost on a seeking humble heart ?

Remember how in the Acts of the Apostles, when the question of circumcision was posed to the Apostles?

The council in Jerusalem was still apostolic times, and before most NT writ, while deposit of faith was still being added apostolically, even by direct intervention of God thru dreams to Peter… yet for sure we can use knowledge of such a council, as described in Writ (Acts), where they also acted biblically, as James lays biblical foundation (quoted scripture) or guidance for his ruling on implementing God’s dream, and the testimony of Peter and Paul, regarding the gloriously saved gentiles that God had wrought, and that they witnessed…

 

[rose321]

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

Respectfully opinion only. Maybe Jesus was not so much a reformer, but His task and mission also was to return us back to the true teaching of His Spoken Word and His Laws? And to rebuke those who served within His own Holy Temple asking them>> Why have you placed or uphold your man made Traditions over My Spoken Word? Just asking is all. Peace

 

[theCardinalbird]

Here’s a nice resource on SS:

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura | Catholic Answers Magazine

"When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses." -Catholic answers

Scripture doesn’t teach this doctrine of “the Bible alone” as the sole rule of Christian Faith. Indeed, the Bible points to a magisterium, founded on the apostles and their teaching (Acts 2:42, 1 Tim. 3:15) as well as Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
In addition, the assertion of sola scriptura is self-refuting. That is, it requires an authority outside of the sacred pages to make that determination. It would require at least a God-ordained magisterium. Indeed, the early and most influential Protestant Reformers—Martin Luther and John Calvin—undermined their own “Scripture alone” claims when they realized that they would have to teach their interpretation of Scripture as authoritative over and against someone else’s, including each other’s. -catholic answers

 

[mcq72]

Maybe Jesus was not so much a reformer, but His task and mission also was to return us back to the true teaching of His Spoken Word and His Laws?

reform by any other name is still reform, and your beautiful statement italicized would warm the heart of any reformer…like their mission statement.

 

[mcq72]

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned.

So was St. Paul wrong in telling some to eat meat and others not, or some to honor this day as holy and others not, etc ?

If I recall one of the first divisions was when to celebrate Easter sunday, two sides claiming apostolic tradition (and indeed probably correctly so). Is that the kind of division requiring excommunication and subservience of one to another and the other not ?

In addition, the assertion of sola scriptura is self-refuting.

only if you frame it as so. Just as the constitution outlines powers of governance, so does Writ. Does the president say he is equal to the constitution ? Of course not. Does the president have power ? Of course , but it is ruled, channeled, partly by the legislature and the supreme court as outline in the constitution.

SS simply states that all channeling is ultimately the constitution, or the bible. It does not deny the people and its institutions (apostles and church, even tradition) that set it up that way.

 

[rose321]

reform by any other name is still reform

Respectfully opinion only>.And agree you are correct, thank you for your kind reply and correction, I have learned from you today, that is always good. Peace