About those Bereans

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

I believe that the Bible clearly teaches us the church is all those who believe in Christ and are baptized.

Let’s test that idea.

‘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).

Implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the “Church” must have been a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If your definition of “church” were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to “hear” each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord’s statement here is to acknowledge that there was a definite organization, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

Let’s test that idea.

‘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).

It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the “Church” must have been a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If your definition of “church” were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to “hear” each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord’s statement here is to acknowledge that here was a definite organization, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.

The church is local body of believers as well. Scripture teaches this quite clearly. I thought we were referring to the church, as used in the Bible, versus your the Church. Of course there was an organization at the local level. Do I really have to give you all the multiple definitions of each word. I figured you could tell by the context what we were talking about. Couldnt you? Or did you seriously think I am contending the “church” has only one defintion or use in scripture. DeFide, you have got to quit assuming the worst about people.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

The church is local body of believers as well. Scripture teaches this quite clearly. I thought we were referring to the church, as used in the Bible, versus your the Church. Of course there was an organization at the local level. Do I really have to give you all the multiple definitions of each word. I figured you could tell by the context what we were talking about. Couldnt you? Or did you seriously think I am contending the “church” has only one defintion or use in scripture. DeFide, you have got to quit assuming the worst about people.

I addressed the definition you gave and how it didn’t (and still doesn’t) square with Matthew 18:15-17.

What if the disagreement was between two people of different “local” churches? You already admitted that different local churches disagree.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

I addressed the definition you gave and how it didn’t (and still doesn’t) square with Matthew 18:15-17.

What if the disagreement was between two people of different “local” churches? You already admitted that different local churches disagree.

DeFide, there is a bottom line here. We will never see eye to eye. since we have basically different presuppositions, Disagreements do not disprove truth If that was the case, there would be no truth. You see this as disproving Protestantism or Orthodoxy but not you. Like I said, its tough to see another persons view and easier to give it some kind of caricature type definition. Regardless, I know the different uses of church in the New Testament and I assume you do as well. This is boring. No offence. People who see fellow Christians in this light become one dimensional arguments. Arguing with a Catholic, Church of Christ, Jehovah Witness is actually only beneficial with a certain level of scholarship. We are not hitting that level. What else you want to discuss? Assume I know my Bible and history and lets hit something else.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

DeFide, there is a bottom line here. We will never see eye to eye. since we have basically different presuppositions, Disagreements do not disprove truth If that was the case, there would be no truth. You see this as disproving Protestantism or Orthodoxy but not you. Like I said, its tough to see another persons view and easier to give it some kind of caricature type definition. Regardless, I know the different uses of church in the New Testament and I assume you do as well. This is boring. No offence. People who see fellow Christians in this light become one dimensional arguments. Arguing with a Catholic, Church of Christ, Jehovah Witness is actually only beneficial with a certain level of scholarship. We are not hitting that level. What else you want to discuss? Assume I know my Bible and history and lets hit something else.

That’s OK, Fredricks. I hope you get a chance to contemplate these issues prayerfully in your private time. G’nite.

 

[Fredricks]

Oh my goodness DeFide, I just read some of your old posts. You have been hitting on this Sola Scripture for quite some time. You REALLY do believe that Protestants are inconsistent by preaching! Despite the fact the Bible says we should?!
Have a nice night. I thought you were being sarcastic, in a nice way, but I see you really think that!!
The Lord be with you. I cannot see how this could go anywhere. It would be like me arguing with Fred Phelps, when a person has their mind made up. I only use Fred because I actually know him and he never listened either!!! Not that you would protest people’s funerals or anything that repulsive!
Washington Fredricks

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

Do not argue against a simplistic Jack Chick like definition of Sola Scripture.

This is our problem with examining sola scriptura. Ask 10 protestants what sola scriptura means and you will get 10 different answers. Many of which will claim that the sola scriptura the others believe in is wrong.

As Frericks said, “Sola Scripture has different meanings for different groups.”

What good is it then? Trying to get an understanding of what a particular protestant believes about sola scriptura is like trying to hold onto a greased water balloon. It always keeps slipping out of your grasp.

 

[Liam_Kricc]

Fredricks:

BOOKS THAT WE DO NOT CONSIDER CANONICAL ARE NOT LIES

Hello there. I’m curious, who is the “we” you refer to in this statement?

 

[jpusateri]

One thing about those Bereans…

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

In short, the Bereans were exalted as “noble” in comparison to the Thessalonians.

If anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures.

 

[Fredricks]

Liam Kricc:

Hello there. I’m curious, who is the “we” you refer to in this statement?

The majority of Protestants.