I would like to ask you how to respond to protestants when they defend sola scriptura by using words of Jesus when he more times said IT IS WRITTEN. They falsely think Jesus aprove their sola scriptura by these statements. How would you respond ?
You should ask them to show you where in the Bible it says scripture only.
Also, ask them them what “it is written” is in reference to. Hint, it’s not the Bible. The Bible did even begin to get written until after Jesus was already dead, so there’s no way He could be referencing it.
They would say Jesus spoke it is written that is why we ought to rely on scripture as our ultimate source as far as our believe is concerned because Jesus did so. The problem is they think Jesus was sola scripturist because he said words it is written and oft spoke about law. For me it is absurd statement because at that time there was not any new testament and there was not any established Jewish canon.
Actually, it was. When Jesus said, “It is written,” He was referring to and quoting passages from the Old Testament Scriptures, which are part of our Bible and were written long before Jesus was born.
Would respond that God doesn’t work alone(the Trinity)
And neither do the elements of our faith, but they work together to bring about our salvation. And neither should we.
The Seven Sorrowful Solae
Oh Sola Scriptura!
Oh Sola Fide!
Oh Sola Gratia!
Oh Soli Deo Gloria!
Oh Christus Solus!
Oh Sola Mio!
Oh Sola You!
How many Solae does Protestantism need before the term ‘sola’ becomes senseless?
True, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible didn’t exist, and therefore his words would not apply to it. I’m sure if you asked a Protestant if we should only rely on the OT, since that’s what Jesus was referencing, they would reject the notion.
Isn’t this an example of circular reasoning?
I’d have to go with the idea that Jesus was referring to the Written Torah if not the Tanakh. If this is their basis for sola scripture, then nothing in the New Testament would count because it wasn’t written at the time of Jesus.
I’m not going to argue about Sola Scriptura, because I don’t believe in it. However, the term is, after all, “sola Scriptura,” not “sola Biblia,” to you need to take the word “Bible” completely out of the discussion. Jesus was quoting the Old Testament, and therefore He was quoting “Scriptura”. The complete Bible that we know did not exist, of course. However, “Scriptura” did exist, and Jesus made use of it, many times.
Edit: To flip this around, can you point to any instance where Jesus said “It is written” and then quoted something that was not Scripture?
Excellent point. I stand corrected.
…is that the only thing Jesus said?
…Jesus also said:
[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
(St. John 6:54-57)
…as I understand it, the Greek term used was closer to “chew” or “gnaw,” so since the Catholic Church is the only Church that has Taught Jesus’ Word as Jesus stated His Word, why are they not Obeying Christ and returning to His Body, the Catholic Church?
Further, Jesus, when giving the Apostles the Great Commission, did not state “it is written;” rather this is what He Commanded:
18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
(St. Matthew 28:18-20)
Jesus did not Command the Apostles to learn the Old Testament (Scriptures) by heart and to teach others to go “sola” Scriptura–the New Testament had not even been dreamt about by a single Apostle!
Could you imagine the fallacy of “sola” Scriptura (only the practicing Jews would buy into that since they reject the totality of the New Covenant, along with the New Testament’s Scriptures)? If we were to contort Jesus’ statement into “sola” Scriptura, would we not be rejecting the New Testament Writings?
Here’s what Jesus is saying with His term “it is written:”
21 And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.
(St. Luke 4:21)
4 And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. 5 The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. (St. Matthew 11:4-5)
…do you see the difference?
Catholic exegesis places the term in accordance to Jesus’ Revelation of the Messiah and the Revelation of the Immanuel (God-with-us) Coming to the Temple; Protestant eisegesis closes the book on all of the New Testament Scriptures and puts words into Jesus’ Mouth that He did not Pronounce (Command).
Further, there’s not a single passage in Scriptures where Jesus explicitly or implicitly Teaches (Commands) anything about going “sola” Scriptura.
We do have Jesus’ Command to bring issues that are important to Salvation to the Church:
15 “If your brother sins against you, go to him and show him his fault. But do it privately, just between yourselves. If he listens to you, you have won your brother back.16 But if he will not listen to you, take one or two other persons with you, so that ‘every accusation may be upheld by the testimony of two or more witnesses,’ as the scripture says.17And if he will not listen to them, then tell the whole thing to the church. Finally, if he will not listen to the church, treat him as though he were a pagan or a tax collector.
(St. Matthew 18:15-17)
Note that not once did Jesus Command His Disciples to seek the Written Word; He Commanded that they resolve the issue amongst themselves by urging the errant Believer back into the Fold; Jesus cites the Church as the Final Authority–according to Jesus, it is the Church, not “sola” Scriptura, that has the Authority to Bind and Loosen; this Authority, Delegated to her by Christ, is upheld in Heaven! (St. Matthew 16:18-19; St. John 20:21-23)
TWO things to SHARE
**1.My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?
Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:
Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Fait**h”
2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:  Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.  For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
[Douay Bible explanation]
**No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes
“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]
- Then from the Bible:
John 20: 30-31
 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.  But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
John 21: 24-25
 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.  But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
And for your edification:
One of the primary reasons Protestants have such a multiplicity of faith-beliefs, is because they are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, who imposes upon them a lack of RIGHT understanding, due to the FACT that they support and advocate a competiting faith.
NOWHERE in the bible can one find support for GOD ever permitting, accepting or even tolerating competing sets of faith beliefs
An underlying cause of this lack of right understanding is NOT taking proper note of the singular tense WORDS that the Catholic inspired by the Holy Spirit 1 Tim 3: 16-17; Authors of the NT [the bible IS a Catholic book], choose to use.
Use this free site to look these passages up, taking NOTE of the singular tense words:
John 17: 17-20
Eph 2: 18-19
Eph 4: 1-7
If they were able to discern GOD"S Truths, there would be no competing faiths.
OF NOTE ALSO
No “church” can be separated from its chosen set of faith beliefs.
It is the set of faith beliefs that identify a “church”
Hope this helps you, thanks for asking
…just noticed: Welcome Home! :extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:
…their take on Jesus is based on their denominational bias–the one constant in Jesus’ Missionary period is the recognition that He Taught with Authority… for Jesus to have been and advocate of “sola” Scriptura would make Him the most confused person in the world since He constantly Taught things that were not in the Old Testament Scriptures, Unfolded the meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures, and Corrected the errors that had crept in as teachings based on the Word of God… none of which did He accomplished through “sola” Scriptura!
Further, not one single Apostle/Writer Taught “sola” Scriptura or attempted to attribute such understanding to Christ’s Teachings!
…as for Scriptures being all that’s needed:
[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]29The Holy Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to that carriage and stay close to it.”30Philip ran over and heard him reading from the book of the prophet Isaiah. He asked him, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31The official replied, “How can I understand unless someone explains it to me?” And he invited Philip to climb up and sit in the carriage with him.
…clearly this passage is speaking against “sola” Scriptura; here’s a learned man, who’s very religious and a student of Scriptures… yet, he and “sola” Scriptura simply leaves him in the dark… it takes the Power of God (Holy Spirit) interceding for the man–as a member of the Church reaches the Ethiopian, the man puts away all pretense of “knowing” God and asks to be Taught. Once the Holy Spirit seeds the Revelation in his heart and mind, the Ethiopian is compelled to become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church:
“Here is some water. What is to keep me from being baptized?”
…until the Church’s Teaching reaches the Ethiopian he could not connect the Old Testament Scriptures and Jesus to Salvation!
In reference to what was written, Jesus sometimes said, “You have heard it said… But I say to you…” (Matthew 5), modifying or even abrogating what was written. At the same time, i.e., while the Old Covenant was in force, Jesus also told the crowd and his own disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, … [even though] they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear …” (Matthew 23:2-4) So, I don’t think of Jesus was a champion of Scripture alone.
I seem to recall the devil quoting scripture too. I mean that doesn’t mean that scripture isn’t authoritative but it does mean there are ways that it can be quoted out of context.
Tell them that the critical thing is the party wielding the Word, not merely the fact that it’s written. When Jesus interprets the Word His understanding is authoritative. He established the Church for that same purpose. When she speaks, from her role as teacher, God speaks. Everything else in regards to biblical interpretation is just personal opinion, and Protestantism has proven that by the fact that its churches and denominations often disagree over the meaning of Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not work. Anyone can say, “It is written”, not everyone can tell you what “it” means.
Good point although not sure what some of those solas are.