Were the Bereans "Sola Scripturists"?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Doubting Thomas, Jul 7, 2005.

  1. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    In the debates over the 16th century doctrinal novelty, "Sola Scriptura", it is often claimed that the Bereans in Acts 17 are examples of sola Scripturists in the Bible since they..."searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." I submit, that not only does this argument not do justice to the context of the passage, but it doesn't consider what "these things" were that the Bereans were looking for in the Scriptures.

    Let's back up to verse 2 where Paul was at a synogogue of the Jews in Thessalonica:
    "Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead and saying, 'This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ'. And some were persuaded..." (Acts 17:2-4)
    So specifically Paul, in His preaching of Christ to the Jews, was demonstrating to the Jews from their Scriptures (the OT) that the Messiah indeed "had to suffer and rise again from the dead" no doubt pointing to Messianic prophecies. He then concluded that this specific person, Jesus of Nazareth, whom he was preaching fulfilled these specific prophecies--suffering and rising again. Paul had to do this as many Jews had the mistaken notion that Messiah was not to suffer and die, let alone rise again. Paul, thus, preached to these Jews the correct, authentic interpretation of Scriptures and how they were recently fulfilled in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazereth. It is these particular truths--that the Messiah must suffer and rise again--that Paul was using the (OT) Scriptures to point out in order to make his case that Jesus is the Christ. (So far, so good.)

    The result was that many were persuaded by Paul's preaching--his correct interpretation of Messianic Scriptures and that these were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. However not all bought Paul's interpretation:


    "But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious..." (v.5)


    Now to verse 10 at Berea:
    "When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica in that they receive the word[ie the apostolic preaching of Paul] with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out if these things were so. Therefore, many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men."(v.10-12)

    Note that the Bereans are called "more fair minded" primarily because they receive the apostolic word with all readiness. Secondarily, they looked into the (OT) Scriptures to verify to themselves that "these things"--Paul's specific arguments from the OT that the Messiah must suffer and rise--could be found in the Scripture. (So far, so good)

    The problem comes when the advocates of Sola Scritpura conclude by claiming that everything must be not only verifed by Scripture, but derived from Scripture with no help from the Church. This doesn't follow for several reasons:

    (1)It was the Apostolic Preaching--both in Acts 17 and in Philip's encounter with the eunuch--that provided the correct, authentic interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures (OT), particularly how the Messianic passages were to be interpreted. The Apostles learned this authentic interpretation from Christ Himself. Sadly, today Jewish apologists continue to ignore this Apostolic teaching and using "sola Scriptura" tactics conclude that Christ could not have been the Messiah. Similarly, error is likewise the fate anyone who seeks to interpret the Scriptures--OT or NT--outside the Tradition of the Apostles.

    (2) It took the Apostolic Preaching to identify, to the Jews, the specific historical Individual who fulfilled these Scriptural prophecies (rightly interpreted) and was, thus, "the Christ".

    (3) Although the OT foretold the fact of a New Covenant, the specific details and praxis of the New Covenant could not always be verified by or derived from the Old Testament as there was only vague hints of this in the OT. For example, despite having the OT scriptures there was a dispute in the Church over whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised or not to enter the covenant. Instead of searching in vain for a proof-text from the OT (other than mentioning that the Scriptures foretold the fact of the Gentiles coming into the covenant), the Apostles made their decision that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised because "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28). They could do with confidence this because Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them (collectively) into all the truth (John 16:13)...even if they couldn't find an OT proof text to answer all their questions.

    In addition to this, other examples include the details of baptism, the details of celebration of the Eucharist and church order and other teachings and praxis of the New Covenant which were handed down to the churches for two decades without any OT proof-text or before any NT epistle was written. Yet, the Christians obeyed because they discerned that the Apostolic Traditions were delivered to them by the Apostles from the Lord and were thus authoritative, the very commands of God. This is the same tradition which Paul commands Christians to keep whether delivered orally or by epistle (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15).

    So to sum up, "sola Scriptura" can only be "demonstrated" from the case of the Bereans if one reads that doctrine back into the passage while ignoring the context and the historical realities of the early Church. Reading "sola Scriptura" into this passage clearly goes beyond what the Scriptures themselves are saying.
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Certainly a valid result of his sola-scriptura approach AND THEIR own sola-scriptura method of TESTING to "SEE WHETHER those things are so".

    "Sola Scriptura" as a principle is NOT dependant on WHICH doctrine of scripture you are testing at the time. (A spin you seem to have hoped to place on this).

    The "principle" is that one can and SHOULD TEST the teaching that you hear (EVEN if the one teaching is AN APOSTLE!) against scripture to "SEE IF those things are so".

    As you point out Paul had a teaching about the Messiah - that claimed that Jesus was the CHRIST (the Messiah). But he needed to PROVE that claim SOLA Scriptura and his doctrine - his teaching had to be VALIDATED by scripture to SEE IF it was so - "Apostle or not".

    THere is nothing like "Well in this one particular case I give you non-Christians PERMISSION to validate this against the Bible" -- in the text. (Though you seem to NEED it).

    Define "help from the church".

    How much "help" was Paul giving in Acts 17?

    Basically he preaches "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1Cor 2) determined to "know nothing among you but this" and his direct teaching is "tested" to "see IF it is true".

    Impossible to spin this one.

    The problem with that circular argument is that they did not "study Paul daily and compare Paul to Paul to SEE IF PAul is correct".

    You have to have a single agreed upon standard to judge against. A moving target won't do and self-authenticating is not what is happening (by explicit statement) in Acts 17.

    Your point that Paul has a message at all about Jesus being something that violates Sola Scriptura is a failed argument. IN EVERY case the doctrine tested is ALWAYS of a form "OTHER" than a straight "paraphrase" of scripture. So in this case - they were not testing to see "if a paraphrase was correct" rather they were testing to see IF JESUS was the MESSIAH as Paul said!

    And as they are studying 'the scriptures' the Holy Spirit is leading them.

    There is nothing in the "New Covenant" of Heb 8 (quoted from Jeremiah) that they could not "test" against scripture to see "IF it was so"!

    In fact when you take a look at Heb 8,9 and 10 you see that Christ is fullfilling OT scripture AND that ALL the arguments made FOR HIS NT work as our High Priest is coming FROM The OT TEXT!!

    To Sum it up - Acts 17:11 DOES SHOW VALIDATION being made NOT by "studying TRADITION to see if those things were so" and NOT by "studying TRADITION plus SCRIPTURE to see IF those things are so" but by studying "SCRIPTURE" to see IF those things were so.

    And we see in Mark 7 the clear condemnation of those who would introduce TRADITION that can not be harmonized with scripture!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Notice that Christ said that the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai had gone into error and yet continued to “honor ME with their lips”

    1. Christ then pronounces their Worship to be in vain.
    2. Christ points to the cause “Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” – as though man’s wild-ideas are equal to the inspired word!
    3. Christ points out the specific damage done by such man-made tradition Neglecting the commandment of God you HOLD to the tradition of men”
    4. Christ points to direct conflict between that which is written in God’s Word – regarding His own “commandments” vs “your tradition”.. What is IN the Word vs what is simply the-words-of-men.
    5. Christ specifically points to the Fifth Commandment in that UNIT OF TEN – saying that this one is being “effectively” negated by man’s tradition. NOTE that the Jews would not claim they were negating it – but Christ charges that the result is the same.
    6. Then the phrase that many “traditionalists” claim is not in God’s Word – “thus Invalidating the WORD of GOD by your TRADITION”. Here God points to HIS WORD as having authority above and beyond “The tradition” of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai. Clearly tradition must be tested against the Word to VALIDATE that it is NOT in any way contradictory – to meet Christ’s standard.
    7. Finally Christ points out that this is not the ONLY case of Tradition contradicting the “Word of God”. In fact He has already stated that they are “experts at setting aside the commandment of God” in favor of “your tradition”

    Yet some today would charge that it is “factious” and “divisive” to argue against their “many traditions” and point out where they contradict the clear Word of God. They claim this act of pointing out their own error is to divide the church and break up the John 17 prayer for unity. Note how easy it would have been for the Jewish Magesterium in the above example to make the same charge against Christ for His act in pointing out “Their error” in that same way!

    In fact they could point to the fact that this may well split the faithful possibly even starting an entirely new “sect” called “Christians”!!
     
  4. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Where is the gospel message found?
    What do "these things" refer to?
    Do they refer to the teachings of Christ?

    Let's see:
    Luke 24:25-28 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
    26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
    27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
    28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

    What did Jesus speak of to these disciples. They were worried, concerned. It was now the third day and they had heard nothing of his resurrection.
    What did Jesus say first to them: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things?" Then he went through the Scriptures and showed them all the prophecises related to his death, and the need for his death in relation to its necessity for dying for their sins.

    Again what did he do:
    Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    Wouldn't you call that sola scriptura used by Christ himself? Using only the Scripture, he went through all the Old Testament and proclaimed the gospel to them. This was the New Testament message that Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch had. This is the message that the disciples had learned from Jesus. This is what "these things" refers to. This is what they coud study from the Scriptures.

    There is no tradition here; only Scripture.
    Baptism is not a part of salvation. Paul said in 1Cor. 1, that he came not to baptize. His mission was to preach the gospel. Either others with him did the baptizing, or more probably those that he left in charge, or appointed as pastors would do the baptizing. Paul made it clear that God had not called him to baptize. Likewise with the Lord's Supper.
    The context then, of Acts 17:11 is strictly the gospel message. It is when he first went there and proclaimed to them the gospel message which is easily preached from the book of Isaiah, Genesis 3, many of the Psalms, many of the minor prophets, etc. The gospel message is found throughout the Old Testament.

    To say that sola scriptura cannot be demonstrated in Acts 17:11 is actually to deny the words of Jesus in in Luke 24, who used the Old Testament via sola scriptura very thoroughly.
    DHK
     
  5. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Certainly a valid result of his sola-scriptura approach AND THEIR own sola-scriptura method of TESTING to "SEE WHETHER those things are so".</font>[/QUOTE]The emphasis is on correct interpretation. It took the coming of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles to demonstrate the correct interpretation of Scriptures and how they were filled with Christ. Had the Bereans not "received the word (preaching) with all readiness" they would have failed to see that the Scriptures, correctly interpreted, were in fact consistent with the Apostles' preaching.
    Actually, for reasons I mentioned above, using the Bereans passage (in which they examined very specific claims made by Paul regarding the suffering and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah) to demonstrate "sola Scriptura" goes beyond the intent and context of the passage. "Details", Bob! :cool:

    Only by assuming "sola Scriptura" can you even hope to attempt to derive this "principle" from this passage.

    He demonstrated that by arguing from "scriptura", not "SOLA scriptura"...big difference. It was his preaching--that Jesus of Nazareth--fulfilled the prophecies (correctly interpreted) that was received with all readiness.

    The authentic interpretation of the apostles who are the foundation of the church.

    He's showing that popular misconceptions of the Messiah were wrong (ie correcting their interpretation of the OT) and revealing the specific historical individual--Jesus of Nazareth--in which the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled. Without the preaching of the apostles, the Jews would not have known either.


    The problem with that circular argument is that they did not "study Paul daily and compare Paul to Paul to SEE IF PAul is correct".</font>[/QUOTE]No, they, given this new information from Paul, re-examined their previously held interpretations of Scripture (particulary the Messiah passages) and discovered that the Messiah indeed had to suffer and rise again. They received the good news that Jesus, whom Christ preached, was this Messiah.

    The single agreed upon standard is the Canonical Scriptures, as determined by the Church by the guidance of the Spirit, and interpreted in the Church where the authentic Apostolic tradition resides. The standard is emphatically not the Scriptures left to be interpreted however a specific individual or group sees fit outside the parameters of the Apostolic rule of faith.

    Nope, not at all.


    Only if they come to the same conclusions as the apostles. If not, the Holy Spirit is not leading them as He does not lead into contradiction.

    "Details", Bob. The doctrine and praxis of baptism and the Eucharist were not specifically spelled out in the OT. Yet these were vital parts of the New Covenant communities established by the Apostles even before any NT works were written. The Christians didn't have to wring their hands, nervously waiting on an epistle to be written before they could worhsip as the apostles commanded them. They obeyed the Apostles because they recognized they had the authority of Christ even on these specific issues which were only hinted at in the OT. Christ said: "he who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me" (Luke 10:16) "Hearing" implies oral communication, Bob. That's why despite having no specific OT proof-text, the Apostles were able to teach the detail that the Gentiles need not be circumcised to enter the Covenant. That's also how the early Christians were able to worship on Sunday without any specific OT proof text to justify this move.

    Details, Bob! :cool: The early Christians were united in seeing the Eucharist as the central point of worship in which the believers really participated in Christ's body and blood which was shed for them on Calvary. Although, there are vague hints of this (seen in hindsight) in the OT, the specific details were delivered to the Christians by the Apostles.


    And we see in 2 Thess 2:15, that the Christians were commanded to hold the traditions delivered to them by the apostles whether oral message or by epistles. Of course, oral tradition and Scripture, correctly interpreted, will always harmonize as their source is Christ.
     
  6. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    No, because left to themselves they could not discern that Christ is the fulfillment of (and who gives authentic meaning to) the Scriptures. They would have most likely become like the unbelieving Jews who use the OT to disprove Christianity.

    Indeed He used the Scriptures, and His explanation and interpretation gave the true meaning to these Scriptures.

    And it took the preaching of Paul and of Philip (and of the other apostles) to open up and point out the true meaning of Scriptures. Left to themselves, the Jews couldn't figure out what these Scriptures meant despite their most diligent efforts. This authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture, handed down from Christ and the Apostles, is the heart of Apostolic tradition.

    But it is tradition (paradosis)--"that which is handed down or delivered". Christ and His apostles "handed down" the true meaning of Scriptures and that they were fulfilled in Christ, and thus how the New Covenant communities were to then worship. And Paul commanded that these traditions be held whether delivered orally or by epistle.

    Christians for the first 1500 years of the Church and most Christians on earth today would disagree with you.
     
  7. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Catholic propagandists just love to invent a past...and present...world of their own creating in order to perpetuate such nonesense.

    If indeed what was posted were true, which of course its not, it would only mean the majority would be wrong.

    Truth of course is not determined by "popular opinion"...truth is determined by "what sayeth the Lord?"

    The incredible importance of turning to Gods scriptures alone as our truth standard continues to made more and more evident.

    Grace and peace and truth,

    Mike
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sola S only computes when scripture is taken in chronological order. It isn't reasonable to claim that SS started at the time of Jesus or Isaiah. One must start at Moses.


    Christians and rabbis (Pharisees)read the book from back to front. Only the Sadducees maintained the correct order.
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is no tradition here; only Scripture.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    THis is not true even today.

    Tradition can be ADDED tomorrow!

    SCRIPTURE was completed in the first century AD.

    Christ points to TRADITION as being contradictory to scripture. He does not say "Some of your tradition is contraictory to some ancestor's tradition" and that is why you are wrong.

    Heaven only knows the myriad of ancestor's traditions that exist - or the NEW tradition that will be added tomorrow!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    THis is not true even today.

    Tradition can be ADDED tomorrow!

    SCRIPTURE was completed in the first century AD.

    Christ points to TRADITION as being contradictory to scripture. He does not say "Some of your tradition is contraictory to some ancestor's tradition" and that is why you are wrong.

    Heaven only knows the myriad of ancestor's traditions that exist - or the NEW tradition that will be added tomorrow!

    In Christ,

    Bob ]</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Bob that is indeed the definition of the Greek word, paradosis that is translated "tradition"--"that which is delivered or handed down". That is the meaning of the word, which is why certain traditions (that "of men") can be condemned in Scripture (ie Mark 7; Col 2:8); while others (that "handed down" by the apostles from Christ) are commanded to be kept in Scripture (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). It's the orignial source of "that which is handed down" that matters--man or God. Therefore, any new "tradition" that can be "added tomorrow" is not part of the orignal Apostolic deposit and therefore not Apostolic Tradition.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    But that is NOT the definition of "scripture" or "the WORD" or "The COMMANDMENT of God". In Mark 7 Christ condemns their "Tradition" their "paradosis".

    And so in 2Cor 11 He condemns the tradition the teaching the words the doctrine of the APOSTLES - those who call themselves APOSTLES.

    The problem is not that false apostles are readily accepted even though they say they are false apostles. THEY ALL claim to be REAL!

    Paul says that they are to be judged by what scripture says "TO SEE IF THOSE THINGS ARE SO" in Acts 17:11, and then based on what has already been approved through that method - in 2Cor 11.

    It could not be an clearer in the method to use.

    In fact Paul condemns any Apostle or even "an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" if they come teaching ANYTHING other than what has ALREADY been given (as in "contrary" to what has been given).

    So ALL doctrine must be validated "sola scriptura" - we then have a safe anchor that can not be moved by the false apostles and teachers of some church in the dark ages.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    </font>[/QUOTE]No, because left to themselves they could not discern that Christ is the fulfillment of (and who gives authentic meaning to) the Scriptures. They would have most likely become like the unbelieving Jews who use the OT to disprove Christianity.[/qb][/quote]
    The question was: Did Christ use sola scriptura? It matters not who the audience was in this case. It could have been a bunch of Hindus. Sola Scriptura, literally means "Scripture alone." What did Christ use to prove that 'Christ ought to suffer these things.' Did he use:
    Oral Tradition?
    Catholic Dogma?
    Teaching of the Magesterium?
    A Catecheism?

    What did he use ?!
    Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    This is sola scriptura. He used the Bible alone to prove his point, going through all the Scriptures to explain to the disciples why he should die and suffer these things. He used the Scripture only. That is sola scriptura.

    And so do we when we expound the Scriptures using only the Scriptures as our authority. This is, and always has been sola scriptura. It is expositional preaching. We find the truths of Scripture by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and we preach the Word of God. Our only authority is the Scripture. We have no authority such as the church fathers or tradition. It is the Bible alone.

    Paul and Philip used sola scriptura. They opened up the Word of God and preached from the Word of God. No other source was used. It is true that the Ethiopian eunuch did not, as an unsaved man have understanding of that passage Scripture. That is why God works through men, such as pastors and evangelists. Even in the lives of ordinary believers he uses the Holy Spirit to illumine their minds to the correct understanding of the passage.
    That is why the people at Berea could understand. They were devout Jews. They had a knowledge of the Old Testament already. All that they had to do was go and search the Scriptures that they had learned from their youth, and check and see if what Paul was preaching was true according to what they had learned. It was all sola scriptura from both sides. Paul preached solely from the Scriptures, and they checked his message solely from the Scriptures. People today need to do the same thing.

    There was no tradition handed down here. That is ridiculous. The only thing handed down is the Word of God, which was completed by the first century. Thus only sola scriptura was handed down. We are to prove all things by the Bible. This was the method throughout all the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 states it as a principle. Believers in the New Testament everywhere practiced it. Tradition in the sense you speak of, was condemned by Christ.

    You are wrong. False religions, false teachers, cults, false sects, taught such things; but never true believers in Christ. History for the last 2,000 years would disagree with you.
    DHK
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have seen a lot of attempts to disprove Sola Scriptura, but this one has to be right at the top of the list of the most lame. The verse itself proves that the test for any message was Scripture. They judged Paul's words by the test of Scripture, and that is essentially what sola scriptura is. Something is true when it conforms with Scripture; something is false when it contradicts Scripture.

    Added to that the fact that the canon had not yet been closed, and Paul was one of the apostles that completed the Scriptures in the NT, this whole thread becomes an even worse argument for sola scriptura. Once again, attempts to disprove what the Bible teaches about itself in order to support Romanism falls flat on its face.
     
  14. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yep, and the "their" refers to the Pharisees' traditions, not the apostles'.


    This has nothing to do with Paul's (a real apostle) commands to the Christians to keep the tradition that he delivered to them, whether orally or by epistle. (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15)

    Exactly, and this Apostolic message was "given" orally and by epistle.

    Nope, because the results depend on who is doing the validating by the "scritpura" and what presuppositions they bring to the "scriptura" Without the controlling interpretive framework of the Apostolic rule of faith, the "scriptura" can made to say pretty much anything. "Scriptura" cannot be interpreted "sola" irrespective of the Apostolic tradition.
     
  15. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well, I personally think the attempt to defend Sola Scriptura from Acts 17 is "pretty lame" itself given the context of the passage and the historical realities of the early Church.

    As I pointed out in my initial post, the verse only "proves" Sola Scriptura" if one reads it back into the passage. The Bereans received Paul''s new interpretation of Scripture and did indeed discover that his message, that the OT shows the Messiah must die and rise again, was true. Before they received the apostolic preaching they were lost. However, as I also mentioned in the post above, there were specific details of the New Covenant that were not spelled out in the OT. These were received by the Christians from the apostles based on the authority given to them by Christ Himself.

    Of course, depending on who is doing the interpreting, a given doctrine can either "conform with" or "contradict the Scripture". To the unbelieving Jews of today, Christianity contradicts Scripture. To those holding fast to the Apostles Traditions (given to them from Christ), Christianity is the fulfillment of Scriptures. (And so on....)

    Of course, nowhere in Scripture does it say to hold fast the traditions until the "canon is closed". Paul commands the Thessalonians to hold fast the tradition whether delivered orally or by epistle. Period. The irony is that sola Scriptura actually goes beyond the plain teaching of Scripture.
     
  16. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    No He didn't. He didn't just present a bare text. He gave the true meaning of Scripture to them, something they lacked before. This true meaning of Scriptures is the heart of the tradition that the Apostles handed down to the church.

    But depending on who is doing the "expounding", different and contradictory conclusions are reached about the Scriptures actually means.
    And depending on what presuppositions and what proof texts one starts with, "comparing Scripture to Scripture" leads to contradictory conclusions on some key issues. The discussions on this message board is proof enough of that.
    Actually your authority turns out to be your interpretation of Scripture which unfortunately seems to be unduly influenced by 16th century traditions of men.

    Not exactly--they preached OT as being fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.
    Yet the Holy Spirit doesn't "illumine" minds to accept contradictory versions of Christianity. Yet this relativistic denominationalism is the fruit of sola Scriptura.

    Yes, it was the Word of God which was handed down orally or by epistle.

    Nope. Scripture was indeed handed down. And the authentic apostolic interpretation of the Scripture was handed down. And the specific details of the praxis and teachings of the New Covenant were handed down, even if not systematically spelled out in either the OT or NT.

    Yet depending on who is doing the "proving" different conclusions are reached as to what the Bible means.
    This is what you've asserted without proving.

    Not at all--tradition in the sense I speak was commended by Paul. Only false Pharisaical tradition was condemned by Christ.

    You are wrong. False religions, false teachers, cults, false sects, taught such things; but never true believers in Christ. History for the last 2,000 years would disagree with you.
    DHK</font>[/QUOTE]And yet there is no historical evidence of anyone for the first 1500 years who did not believe that baptism was part of salvation.
     
  17. bmerr

    bmerr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doubting Thomas,

    bmerr here. You are doing well, sir. I don't know enough about you yet to call you "brother", but I like what I've read so far. Keep it up.

    Regarding interpretation, there is a right way and myriad wrong ways to go about it.

    In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus asks the question, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

    He's asking for the man's interpretation of what is written, or Scripture. Continuing on, Jesus tells the man, "Thou has answered right...", indicating that he could have answered wrong.

    You are correct in the assertion that presuppositions about Scripture cloud the understanding of it. I wrestled with preconcieved ideas for about four years, myself. I kept running into things that didn't fit with them. In the end, I had to give them up. Not many are willing to (Matt 7:13, 14).

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  18. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    bmerr,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    In Christ,

    DT
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And herein lies the problem. You are basing your doctrine on what you "personally think" rather than on what God revealed.

    And has been pointed out, you are incorrect. Why did the Bereans study the Scriptures? To see if Paul was correct. To say that Paul gave a "new interpretation of Scripture" in nonsense. In fact, Paul appealed to the authority of Scripture for his message. You see earlier in Acts 17 that Paul reasoned with them from the Scriptures. Why? BEcause they were the authority.

    This is a lame excuse, to argue about interpretation. When the Bible is clear, you conform your interpretation to that. And that is where you fail.

    Exactly. And those traditions are found only in Scripture. That is exactly the point. Yet you, based on following a faulty man made doctrine, reject it.

    No it doesn't. You don't score points by stating something incorrectly. The plain teaching of Scripture is that Scripture alone is sufficient for God's revelation to us.
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    [QB] I have seen a lot of attempts to disprove Sola Scriptura, but this one has to be right at the top of the list of the most lame.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is pretty amazing since the text itself SAYS that they were only using scripture to validate the APOSTLE!

    Your claim all along has been that we should accept whatever someone says if they also claim to be an Apostle.

    The example in Acts 17:11 utterly devastates every argument you have made so far.

    As pointed in 2Cor 11 - EVEN the claim to be "an Apostle" is insufficient to avoid error.

    In fact in Gal 1 - EVEN the claim to be "an angel from heaven" is INSUFFICIENT to avoid error and just swallow whatever you are told!

    In ALL cases the only defense is the method APPROVED in Acts 17:11 - "Search the scriptures DAILY TO SEE IF those things ARE SO".

    A more devastating case against the idea of just swallowing whatever a high-enough leader "Says" -- could not be imagined!!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...