About those Bereans

[Fredricks]

VociMike:

Wouldn’t you say that Scripture was the final authority for the Bereans? They “examin[ed] the scriptures daily to see if these things were so”. And yet, not all of them believed. “Many” is not “all”. So even though they heard the true gospel preached by the apostles, when they examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so, some of them got it wrong. And they got it wrong on the most important issue they would ever submit to Scripture.

That is my point. They had the Scriptures and they had the preaching of the apostles, and still some of them came to the fundamentally wrong conclusion. How can any Protestant expect to do better, especially when they don’t have the apostles there to question and discuss with?

Not everyone who heard Christ himself believed. “All”
I think this is one of those times to keep it real. No message, scripture and tradition, scripture, has ever been received by all.

 

[Fredricks]

QUOTE=Nicene]This is the crux of the debate.

For the protestant, the bible is the final authority. To be in authority means it must make decisions. Therefore in the protestant context the bible is capable of making decisions. However the bible cannot make decisions.

You made my chuckle Nicene. The final authority and to be in authority, semantics semantics, are different. Do not argue that strawman like DeFide did.
Do you really think Protestants have a question.
Lay the Bible on a table.
Step back.
Bow down.
And say:
“WE CALL UPON YOU TO MAKE A DECISION”
Silence.
“Hear anything Washington”?
“Shhhhhh”. “I think it is about to talk”

For the catholic, God (Father/Son/ Holy Spirit) is the final authority. God is capable of making decisions and making those decisions known to the church via the Holy Spirit who will guide it into all truth.

Nicene, we agree that God is the final authority but think that God has given us the Bible to be that authority. Of course people, or person, interprets the Bible. Nicene, everyone makes a personal interpretation of truth to decide what to follow. The Catholic church. Sola Scritpture with personal interpretation, Sola Scripture as interpreted by elders.

The first, acknowledges a book as the final authority.

The second acknowledges God as the final authority.

Nicene. Stop it. You know that Protestants believe that God gave us the Bible to be that guide like you think God gave the Catholic church. Why are you doing this? This is a strawman and once again, like DeFide, you are arguing against your own definition and that is not like you, usually.

The other protestant arguement you put forth is that protestants have Elders, deacons and so forth. Yet that is not true of all protestant denominations. Some don’t believe in a heirarchy at all but just themselves and the bible. Those that do follow a structure vary widely in execution. Sinse the bible is the “final authority” how did so many different organizations, independant individualists, and beliefs come into existance? Which one is correct? There must be a correct one because the Holy Spirit does not lead into confusion.

There is not a 100% correct human denomination. There is a church that Christ promises. It is not a human organization led by a Pope, or group of Bishops, or elders. It is the church promised in the Holy Scriptures.
The number of organizations does not invalidate sola scripture OR the Catholic church view. They exist. You have many groups as well that adhere to Scripture and Tradition and do not agree. Now, some might say there are only a few. How many do you have to have before that proves my point. Would 10 Protestant denominations be ok? No, just one is not ok people would say. Well, there are more than one churches that split when supposedly led by an infallible Church. Is this a numbers game?
I think not.

The choice becomes one of which to follow as the final authority. The bible, or the living God.

How about God, who reveals his truth through the Bible. Nicene, once again, you know that Protestants accept the Lords sovereignty. Do not argue against a simplistic Jack Chick like definition of Sola Scripture.

 

[Fredricks]

So I asked the questions of you Fredericks and now you defined that the final authority is the 66 books of the Bible.
So then you say the Bible is composed of only 66 books.

Lets assume you are correct…
Anyone using more than that must be damned then since they are using a different canon of the Bible and are therefore not in accordance with God’s plan for truth.
Is this correct?
Or is this Canon optional?

That is not correct at all. I can only assume you have a lick of sense and have not read my posts! Good for you. I would skip over me too!
Gods salvation comes not from acceptance of the Bible being compromised of 66 books. That is not what the scripture teaches at all. Of course Catholic 70 plus, Orthodox 80 plus in some cases, can, and do, accept Christ and are baptized like Protestants, who must also do the same thing.
You know, before we break off into the additional books too much, while I have not read all of the Orthodox additions, among some groups, it has never come to me attention that they add things to what constitutes salvation. The 66 books are, god breathed, inspired. While you guys have more you consider, god breathed, inspired, I am never said that would damn someone. Whoa. Who HAVE you been talking too?

(

the reason I mentioned honesty is most Protestants change the subject or dodge questions,

Man the weather is great this weekend…

and end up putting themselves as the definers of belief. Catholics always give an answer and will follow truth, just start a new thread if you would like an answer-

Catholics always give an answer.
Always?

 

[VociMike]

Fredricks:

Not everyone who heard Christ himself believed. “All”
I think this is one of those times to keep it real. No message, scripture and tradition, scripture, has ever been received by all.

Then why are the Bereans held up as such a model in parts of the Protestant world for searching the Scriptures, when they didn’t always find the truth contained in those Scriptures? That’s the question I am asking. I can’t see that they had any sure-fire forumula, as even your “keep it real” comment acknowledges.

 

[scylla]

So what is it is it 66 books or not?

I do admit I am not the most sensible guy at all times so please answer my question.

God Bless
Scylla

(The reason everyone else would be in trouble is if they are affirming as God’s Word something else then they are affirming lies as truth, that is why this is so serious.)

 

[Fredricks]

So what is it is it 66 books or not?

I do admit I am not the most sensible guy at all times so please answer my question.

God Bless
Scylla

(The reason everyone else would be in trouble is if they are affirming as God’s Word something else then they are affirming lies as truth, that is why this is so serious.)

Yes, I believe the canon is 66 books. I will post on the deutrocanonicals some time in the future.
I do not consider those other books “lies”. Do you think the extra Orthodox books are lies?

 

[Fredricks]

VociMike:

Then why are the Bereans held up as such a model in parts of the Protestant world for searching the Scriptures, when they didn’t always find the truth contained in those Scriptures? That’s the question I am asking. I can’t see that they had any sure-fire forumula, as even your “keep it real” comment acknowledges.

If there was a sure fire formula wouldnt we all belong to the same church?
I do think the Bereans are a good argument for Sola Scripture. Perfect? No,
Good? Yes.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT

1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.

5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.

1. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
   fccphx.homestead.com/SolaScriptura.html

Whoops, we have a glaring contradiction here. If the Bible (or more precisely individual interpretation of the Bible, since you deny an identifiable true Church) is “sufficient as our source of divine truth”, then it contradicts the other statement (#3) that Church has authority to teach.

If the Bible is sufficient, it is all that is needed, and anyone, no matter if they have authority or not, no matter how unlearned, no matter how ignorant, should use the Bible as their sufficient source of divine truth. If more is needed, it’s not sufficient.

Either don’t use the word “sufficient” or apply it to more than just the Bible.

P.S. Once again, your formulas are absent from Scripture.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

Whoops, we have a glaring contradiction here. If the Bible (or more precisely individual interpretation of the Bible, since you deny an identifiable true Church) is “sufficient as our source of divine truth”, then it contradicts the other statement (#3) that Church has authority to teach.

If the Bible is sufficient, it is all that is needed, and anyone, no matter if they have authority or not, no matter how unlearned, no matter how ignorant, should use the Bible as their sufficient source of divine truth. If more is needed, it’s not sufficient.

Either don’t use the word “sufficient” or apply it to more than just the Bible.

P.S. Once again, your formulas are absent from Scripture.

I really think a semantical argument is silly De Fide. I have stated my belief that the Bible is the final authority, if we are arguing my definiton, and a quite common one at that, we should go from there.

 

[scylla]

Fredricks:

Yes, I believe the canon is 66 books. I will post on the deutrocanonicals some time in the future.
I do not consider those other books “lies”. Do you think the extra Orthodox books are lies?

I do not hold to sola scriptura, so I am not stuck in that problem.
We can discuss my views later though, lets continue on with your particular view.

So if the final authority is these 66 books. Anybody holding to other canons are holding on to false authority since they can believe other beliefs based on other canons. So they are believing lies are they from your view or not?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

There is not a 100% correct human denomination. There is a church that Christ promises. It is not a human organization led by a Pope, or group of Bishops, or elders. It is the church promised in the Holy Scriptures.
The number of organizations does not invalidate sola scripture OR the Catholic church view. They exist. You have many groups as well that adhere to Scripture and Tradition and do not agree. Now, some might say there are only a few. How many do you have to have before that proves my point. Would 10 Protestant denominations be ok? No, just one is not ok people would say. Well, there are more than one churches that split when supposedly led by an infallible Church. Is this a numbers game?
I think not.

.

1. The Catholic Church is not merely one of many groups that relies on Scripture & Tradition (any Protestant could do that). The Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church founded by Christ. It’s “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), not “an admixture of error and truth”. Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13).

It is a singular and unique organization and approach.

1. Show me where Jesus said he’d would establish competing churches teaching truth mixed with error.

Such a notion does not square with:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

Notice it doesn’t say “…if he doesn’t listen to the Church, start your own church, Martin Luther”.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

I really think a semantical argument is silly De Fide. I have stated my belief that the Bible is the final authority, if we are arguing my definiton, and a quite common one at that, we should go from there.

I used your own words! Either change your formula or admit that Scripture is not sufficient.

 

[gehall5859]

This thread is long and I have not read all of the posts but I am a little confused by Fredrick.

I though “Sola Scriptura” meant “Only Scripture” i.e. all authority is based only in the bible. Sure preachers preach what is in the bible but should not stray from anything not expressly in the bible.

Therefor if is not in the Bible it has no relevance? Isn’t that what the very definition of the latin Sola Scriptura means?

If you do not accept that teaching then I propose you do not adhere to “Sola Scriptura”. If you do accept “Sola scriptura” I have many things; such as polygamy that I would like you to show me is Biblically wrong.

God Bless all of you

 

[Fredricks]

scylla:

I do not hold to sola scriptura, so I am not stuck in that problem.
We can discuss my views later though, lets continue on with your particular view.

So if the final authority is these 66 books. Anybody holding to other canons are holding on to false authority since they can believe other beliefs based on other canons. So they are believing lies are they from your view or not?

God Bless
Scylla

NO
BOOKS THAT WE DO NOT CONSIDER CANONICAL ARE NOT LIES

They are not part of the canon but a lie, goodness no!

 

[Fredricks]

1. The Catholic Church is not merely one of many groups that relies on Scripture & Tradition (any Protestant could do that). The Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church founded by Christ. It’s “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), not “an admixture of error and truth”. Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13).

It is a singular and unique organization and approach.

1. Show me where Jesus said he’d would establish competing churches teaching truth mixed with error.

Such a notion does not square with:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

Notice it doesn’t say “…if he doesn’t listen to the Church, start your own church, Martin Luther”.

We disagree on what “church” means.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

I used your own words! Either change your formula or admit that Scripture is not sufficient.

Ok, what formula are you talking about? The link? That is not MY formula, it was just to show you that I was not making up what I was saying about Sola Scripture. Why are you so interested in semantics. I was just pointing out your oversimplification of Sola Scripture and the caricature you were arguing against.

 

[VociMike]

Fredricks:

I do think the Bereans are a good argument for Sola Scripture. Perfect? No,
Good? Yes.

Then you are acknowledging that one who follows sola Scriptura has no guarantee of knowing the full truth of God’s revelation. While one who follows the teachings of the Catholic Church does have such a guarantee of knowing the full truth of God’s revelation. So tell me again why anybody would choose sola Scriptura over the Church?

 

[Fredricks]

gehall5859:

This thread is long and I have not read all of the posts but I am a little confused by Fredrick.

I though “Sola Scriptura” meant “Only Scripture” i.e. all authority is based only in the bible. Sure preachers preach what is in the bible but should not stray from anything not expressly in the bible.

Therefor if is not in the Bible it has no relevance? Isn’t that what the very definition of the latin Sola Scriptura means?

If you do not accept that teaching then I propose you do not adhere to “Sola Scriptura”. If you do accept “Sola scriptura” I have many things; such as polygamy that I would like you to show me is Biblically wrong.

God Bless all of you

Sola Scripture has different meanings for different groups. Are you trying to define me out of my belief system?
The final authority DOES NOT mean you do not have other things that are helpful.
Sigh…
I am not really interested in a Sola Scripture tutorial guys. No offence. Read the stuff on the net if interested, if not, dont.

 

[scylla]

Fredricks:

NO
BOOKS THAT WE DO NOT CONSIDER CANONICAL ARE NOT LIES

They are not part of the canon but a lie, goodness no!

So please answer, if the Bible is the final authority then we should be 100% sure on which books should be in it or else we are not on agreement with the supposed authority that God created.
It would be a lie if the authority established by God is the book and that book then would have to be exactly one version to affirm only truth.
If they do not convey God’s truth then whoever is affirming them is stating that what is not God’s inspired Word is God’s inspired Word, so a lie.

So please answer does it have to be the 66 books or not.

God Bless
Scylla

Then we move on to what version of the Bible so I know which translation is 100% correct.

 

[Fredricks]

VociMike:

Then you are acknowledging that one who follows sola Scriptura has no guarantee of knowing the full truth of God’s revelation. While one who follows the teachings of the Catholic Church does have such a guarantee of knowing the full truth of God’s revelation. So tell me again why anybody would choose sola Scriptura over the Church?

The Bible is perfect. We agree on that. You cannot just take one verse and go with it, that is what I am saying.
No one verse should be taken out of OR IN context to support some hairbrained idea.

They would choose Sola Scripture if they thought it was the truth.