About those Bereans

[VociMike]

Often in Protestant circles the Bereans are held up as a model for all Christians to follow. I looked at those passages in Acts 17 again recently and I don’t think the passages say what those circles think they say.

10: The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
11: Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
12: Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

In the first place, these were not believers searching the Scriptures, but Jews, trying to determine if Jesus and the Christian gospel are true. Christians already believe they are.

Even more interestingly, here were people who had the best of both worlds. They had the inerrant Scriptures of the OT, and they had the inerrant word of God as preached by the apostles. And yet even then, when they compared the preaching to the Scriptures, some of them still got it exactly wrong, and did not believe! Even with access to the full truth, some of them believed falsely (that is, they rejected the truth given to them).

As I said, I don’t think the Bereans demonstrate what those Protestant apologists think they do.

 

[DeFide]

VociMike:

Often in Protestant circles the Bereans are held up as a model for all Christians to follow. I looked at those passages in Acts 17 again recently and I don’t think the passages say what those circles think they say.

*10: The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. *
*11: Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. *
12: Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

In the first place, these were not believers searching the Scriptures, but Jews, trying to determine if Jesus and the Christian gospel are true. Christians already believe they are.

Even more interestingly, here were people who had the best of both worlds. They had the inerrant Scriptures of the OT, and they had the inerrant word of God as preached by the apostles. And yet even then, when they compared the preaching to the Scriptures, some of them still got it exactly wrong, and did not believe! Even with access to the full truth, some of them believed falsely (that is, they rejected the truth given to them).

As I said, I don’t think the Bereans demonstrate what those Protestant apologists think they do.

Futher, notice these folks aren’t going by the Bible alone or even the Old Testament alone, but that they first listened to an Apostle telling them exactly what the Scriptures mean. After that, he goes on to tell them things that are not in the Old Testament.

If Paul was a Sola Scriptura man, he would have dropped of a load of OT scrolls for these folks and left in silence. If the Beareans were Sola Scriptura men, they would have told him “Who do you think you are? We go by the Scripture alone.”

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

Futher, notice these folks aren’t going by the Bible alone or even the Old Testament alone, but that they first listened to an Apostle telling them exactly what the Scriptures mean. After that, he goes on to tell them things that are not in the Old Testament.

If Paul was a Sola Scriptura man, he would have dropped of a load of OT scrolls for these folks and left in silence. If the Beareans were Sola Scriptura men, they would have told him “Who do you think you are? We go by the Scripture alone.”

Is that what you think Sola Scripture means? Do you think we do not believe in preaching and teaching? Do you know of any groups that have the definition of Sola Scripture you described?

 

[scylla]

Frederick’s please give a concise meaning of what Sola Scriptura is to you then.

We can make a thread on it because every time we discuss this a new definition of Sola Scriptura comes up and if there is one “honest” meaning that can be defended feel free to describe it.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Fredricks]

Sola Scripture means that the scriptures are the final authority. Now I have heard Sola Scripture folks disagree on whether everything we do should be specifically stated and those who think what we do should not contradict scripture. I have never heard of a church that does not advocate preaching and teaching I want to know you you guys are talking about.

 

[Fredricks]

the only group that I have ever heard of that just reads scripture and leaves it at that is the Christian Science church, albeit they also use Ms. Eddys book as well.

 

[scylla]

Fredricks:

Sola Scripture means that the scriptures are the final authority. Now I have heard Sola Scripture folks disagree on whether everything we do should be specifically stated and those who think what we do should not contradict scripture. I have never heard of a church that does not advocate preaching and teaching I want to know you you guys are talking about.

Ok, now I know what type of Sola Scriptura advocate you are, good most non-catholics dodge around the issue for a while before giving a definition about what they believe.

Now which scriptures are the final authority? Which canon specifically?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[DeFide]

Sola Scripture means that the scriptures are the final authority. Now I have heard Sola Scripture folks disagree on whether everything we do should be specifically stated and those who think what we do should not contradict scripture. I have never heard of a church that does not advocate preaching and teaching I want to know you you guys are talking about.

Scripture, your final authority, nowhere contains your definition, therefore you should reject it.

If the believer must go by their individual interpretation of Scripture alone as their final, sole, sufficient rule of faith, why do Protestant preachers bother preaching? Why don’t they just hand out Bibles in silence and leave?

It seems that if any Protestant tries to tell you what Scripture is or what it means, they’d be setting themselves up as an outside authority and would be violating “Sola Scriptura”.

http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html
http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html

 

[scylla]

It is circular reasoning, but I am trying to get him to admit that himself, if he honestly answers my questions.

Thanks for pointing that out DeFide, feel free to respond though Fredericks, as any Christian is required to give a reason for his belief.

I will go off to rehearsal and await your response tonight
God Bless
Scylla

 

[kevb]

Fredricks:

Sola Scripture means that the scriptures are the final authority. Now I have heard Sola Scripture folks disagree on whether everything we do should be specifically stated and those who think what we do should not contradict scripture. I have never heard of a church that does not advocate preaching and teaching I want to know you you guys are talking about.

Also…who’s interpretation of Scripture is the final authority for people who believe Sola Scriptura? The answer I always get is of course the Holy Spirit, but each denomination is claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation.

 

[Fredricks]

Scripture, your final authority, nowhere contains your definition, therefore you should reject it.

I have never said it contains that defintion.

If the believer must go by their individual interpretation of Scripture alone as their final, sole, sufficient rule of faith, why do Protestant preachers bother preaching? Why don’t they just hand out Bibles in silence and leave?

That would be contrary to the Bible and everything it says about preaching and teaching.

It seems that if any Protestant tries to tell you what Scripture is or what it means, they’d be setting themselves up as an outside authority and would be violating “Sola Scriptura”.

No. If a Protestant did not preach the gospel, they would be violating sola scripture.
If what you are saying is true, then it works for Catholics as well. They should also let the Church speak and say no more? See what I mean?

 

[Fredricks]

scylla:

Ok, now I know what type of Sola Scriptura advocate you are, good most non-catholics dodge around the issue for a while before giving a definition about what they believe.

Now which scriptures are the final authority? Which canon specifically?

God Bless
Scylla

Very good
Well, the sixty six books of the Old and New Testament.
Lets not branch off into the Deutrocanonicals, although at some time, I know, I will have to post on it. I have the beginnings of a thread composed.

 

[Fredricks]

kevb:

Also…who’s interpretation of Scripture is the final authority for people who believe Sola Scriptura? The answer I always get is of course the Holy Spirit, but each denomination is claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation.

I have posted on this topic before. To summarize, the Bible is the final authority, that groups disagree about what it says, is no different than the fact that groups disagree with what Catholics contend is Truth, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Splinter groups or divisions do not disprove truth. If they did, Catholics and Sola Scripture advocates are in the same boat. Both have groups that disagree with what they say.

 

[Fredricks]

scylla:

It is circular reasoning, but I am trying to get him to admit that himself, if he honestly answers my questions.

Thanks for pointing that out DeFide, feel free to respond though Fredericks, as any Christian is required to give a reason for his belief.

I will go off to rehearsal and await your response tonight
God Bless
Scylla

Why would you think I would be anything but honest? Odd…

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

That would be contrary to the Bible and everything it says about preaching and teaching.

No. If a Protestant did not preach the gospel, they would be violating sola scripture.
If what you are saying is true, then it works for Catholics as well. They should also let the Church speak and say no more? See what I mean?

Your definition isn’t in Scripture. Sola Scriptura is “contrary to the Bible and everything it says about preaching and teaching”.

Catholics convey the Church’s teaching, if they’re doing a good job. Sola Scriptura adherents, on the other hand, say that (individual interpretation of) Scripture is the final authority, so it makes no sense to tell people what their interpretation is.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

Your definition isn’t in Scripture. Sola Scriptura is “contrary to the Bible and everything it says about preaching and teaching”.

Catholics convey the Church’s teaching, if they’re doing the good job. Sola Scriptura adherents, on the other hand, say that (individual interpretation of) Scripture is the final authority, so it makes no sense to tell people what their interpretation is.

This is a rather odd conversation. Are you contending that Sola Scripture advocates do not consider outside sources to arrive at their conclusion that scripture is innerant?
I have posted on this at length in other threads. You seem determined to argue your interpretation of Sola Scripture, not what I am telling you. Not all Sola Scripture adherents claim that individual interpretation is the final authority. Who told you that? Many groups, adhere to the authority of the New Testament offices such as elders, deacons, and bishops and them using scripture as THEIR final authority.

 

[Fredricks]

Catholics convey the churches teachings, Protestants convey the Bibles teachings…why is that different again?

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

I have posted on this topic before. To summarize, the Bible is the final authority, that groups disagree about what it says, is no different than the fact that groups disagree with what Catholics contend is Truth, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Splinter groups or divisions do not disprove truth. If they did, Catholics and Sola Scripture advocates are in the same boat. Both have groups that disagree with what they say.

The difference is that Catholics have a way of differentiating legitimate authority from illegitimate. Sola Scriptura adherents have no way of figuring out which of the thousands of competing versions of truth are true.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

The difference is that Catholics have a way of differentiating legitimate authority from illegitimate. Sola Scriptura adherents have no way of figuring out which of the thousands of competing versions of truth are true.

The only way that Catholics can differentiate is by making a decision to accept the Church. This decision is a personal decision. A decision that involves interpretation of who is correct…how are we different again? You did use personal interpretation to accept the truth of Catholicism…didnt you?

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

This is a rather odd conversation. Are you contending that Sola Scripture advocates do not consider outside sources to arrive at their conclusion that scripture is innerant?
I have posted on this at length in other threads. You seem determined to argue your interpretation of Sola Scripture, not what I am telling you. Not all Sola Scripture adherents claim that individual interpretation is the final authority. Who told you that? Many groups, adhere to the authority of the New Testament offices such as elders, deacons, and bishops and them using scripture as THEIR final authority.

Regardless of how it is employed, how do you know that any flavor of Sola Scriptura, is valid? If it was valid, we should at least expect a consistent outcome from its use, but the opposite is true. Many groups have “elders” plus Scripture as their final “authority”, but they don’t agree.