Question for SS believers:

[JTBT]

Doesn’t say “to scripture” in there. Also, the context of the rest of the chapter gives quite a few other “hints”:

well what could we test against , we have already established that the councils did not exist yetuch: , so we can’t turn to them,… hey what did those guys test Pauls words against…scripture I think:newidea:

Now what does that mean? I’m not claiming it as sole basis for the living authority of the Church, but it certainly couldn’t be used to argue against it either. It could very well be evidence of other authority by which to “test” something.

go ahead and expand on this, I’m interested.

 

[bookgirl32]

well what could we test against , we have already established that the councils did not exist yetuch: , so we can’t turn to them,… hey what did those guys test Pauls words against…scripture I think:newidea:

Well, it could be tested against the oral teachings of the apostles, they were still alive at that time so the theory of oral teachings not having staying power wouldn’t hold out.

Or, it could be that that passage was never meant to stand on it’s own at all. Maybe it had been elaborated on in another letter that we DON’T have, maybe it had been elaborated on in simply a “lecture” setting, and the people were being reminded of what had been said.

Of course, none of this would negate the need for studying scripture to see how it corroborates what was being written in the letter. Lack of the words “to scripture” do not mean that it shouldn’t be scripture, but it doesn’t mean that that’s the only thing it could be, either. It’s simply not a thorough enough statement to stand on it’s own as instruction. That doesn’t mean it’s not an infallible part of instruction as a whole.

go ahead and expand on this, I’m interested

What does the fact that there were some that were above others in the Lord mean? It could be taken as evidence that oral knowledge had been passed down to them, and that they should be listened to. Again, I don’t use this as a sole proof of apostolic succession, Church authority, Tradition, etc. But it certainly makes it a possibility.

 

[bookgirl32]

This is also a question, did the apostles “test” Jesus’ words to scripture? I honestly have to look for a reference b/c I’m not sure. If they did, did they see that the scriptures made sense in light of what He revealed to them (meaning the OT), or did the OT validate His claim for them?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Okay EI, I’ll ask you again, how do you know that any of scripture is the true photograph?

1. **A lot of it is identified by its usage by Jesus & the Apostles - not all, but a lot. “Moses and the prophets” is a term which has a meaning outside these Cath-Prot barneys - for Jesus to claim he was foretold in them, identifies a lot of the Tanakh (= OT) for us; while ruling out a lot of other books. **​

**For Jesus to quote words found only in Deuteronomy with the formula “it is written”, shows that He thought that book was Scripture. **

**2. Another point: the books of the Bible are “alive and active” - not inert. They speak for themselves, if one has an ear to hear them. They are very obviously different from any merely human productions; the difference cannot be explained to those not able to perceive it, but that doesn’t make it an illusion. The effect of the Bible is not limited to what Bibles are made of - it is God Who speaks both it, & through it, & what He says cannot be hindered or ignored; no matter how hard we might try. It is not a book, so much as a plant, & a bomb; it is highly explosive stuff. Unfortunately, most “mainstrea****m” Churches seem to have a very poor idea of just what strong medicine it is. **

 

[ABostonCatholic]

So, then, is anyone that interprets differently than you NOT diligently searching now?

Or they’re not doing so honestly. Many times people are searching diligently only to prove their non-Biblical positions.

Because they didn’t. Again, they had Paul and Silas’ teaching authority to guide them, the Jews did not accept it. I’m NOT arguing against scripture itself here. Do you really understand that?

What in the world are you talking about? Read that verse again! The Bereans were QUESTIONING Paul and Silas’ teachings? How can you say that they were being guided by it when they were questioning it and searching through the Scripture to see if its true?

What you’re supporting here is not the Bereans “checking to scripture” necessarily, it’s the interpretive authority of a teacher. Which is what Paul and Silas were. Or, in the case of someone who was with the Bereans at the time but could not read, then one of the Bereans who was reading and passing info onto them. THIS is what Tradition is, orally passed on revelation. It is NOT a tool to interpret. That is the job of the Church.

Read my letters one last time: I know what the Church teaches. But that is not what the Church Fathers teach. I listen to the Church Fathers when there is a disagreement, just as many Catholics here will defer to the Fathers when they disagree with Protestants!

But if you have to check that interpretation with the supreme authority of scripture, then isn’t that a little circular?

Well, that is what the Bereans were praised for?

You think I’m getting what I’m saying from Catholic Answers tracts? I think what I’m saying is in there, yes, but that’s not where I got it. I got it from the Catholic Church. I love Catholic Answers, but I already knew what the tracts said before I got here.

I don’t think you understand what Tradition is. It is another form of the SAME revelation of God, not just a tool (or tools) created to help us interpret. But I see that if you don’t believe that it contains it’s own (not conflicting) revelation, and that it’s only an approvable method of interpreting scripture, where you think Sola Scriptura would make sense. What you’re seeing as Tradition is the interpretive authority of the Church, not Tradition.

I will go read more on the Church Fathers. But the same goes for interpretation of them (and they are NOT infallible revelation, by the way, as much as I agree with them).

But here’s the problem: if Tradition is what you say it is, there cannot be a break. If the Church Fathers widely disagree with the Catholic Church, then everything you say about Tradition cannot logically hold. Otherwise you’ll say that Tradition is the unbroken passing down of the Faith, yet there is a break in its own understanding of itself.

Furthermore, the Church teaches that Tradition and Scripture are different in content (read my quote from Dei Verbum above). Do you accept that? That, again, is my chief contention.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Well, it could be tested against the oral teachings of the apostles, they were still alive at that time so the theory of oral teachings not having staying power wouldn’t hold out.

And what were the oral teachings of the Apostles tested against? Scripture (cp: Bereans)

 

[ChrisWRIT]

And what were the oral teachings of the Apostles tested against? Scripture (cp: Bereans)

Exactly. I can’t seem to find exactly what the Bereans were checking.

What scriptures were they checking?

Were they checking those scriptures to see if Jesus words and actions were pre-recorded?

Were they checking the scriptures to see if Jesus fulfilled actual preexisting prophecies?

What?

Chris

 

[JTBT]

Exactly. I can’t seem to find exactly what the Bereans were checking.

What scriptures were they checking?

Were they checking those scriptures to see if Jesus words and actions were pre-recorded?

Were they checking the scriptures to see if Jesus fulfilled actual preexisting prophecies?

What?

Chris

the point is they were testing the teachings of Paul and Slias against scripture, and they were praised for doing so.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

the point is they were testing the teachings of Paul and Slias against scripture, and they were praised for doing so.

In so doing, they were also accepting the oral declaration that Jesus was the Messiah, which as yet was not Scripture.

 

[JTBT]

In so doing, they were also accepting the oral declaration that Jesus was the Messiah, which as yet was not Scripture.

hey Pixie I was wondering if you would post on this one.

anyway I disagree; they were not accepting the oral declaration; they were checking to see if the oral declaration that Jesus was the Messiah was confirmed in the scripture before they accepted it.

 

[bookgirl32]

But here’s the problem: if Tradition is what you say it is, there cannot be a break. If the Church Fathers widely disagree with the Catholic Church, then everything you say about Tradition cannot logically hold. Otherwise you’ll say that Tradition is the unbroken passing down of the Faith, yet there is a break in its own understanding of itself.

The Church Fathers, while extremely useful, and historically helpful, are not infallible. The Church, however, is. If you find a Church Father that does not agree with everything, it is VERY possible that that is his opinion. It does nothing to change Church doctrine.

Furthermore, the Church teaches that Tradition and Scripture are different in content (read my quote from Dei Verbum above). Do you accept that? That, again, is my chief contention.

I do honestly see what bothers you. But why is “different in content” “conflicting”? The do not contradict eachother, even if in one there is something that is not mentioned in the other. If you look at God’s revelation as ALL true and ALL authoritative, some of it was passed down orally, some of it was written, then it makes more sense. I’m not trying to make you believe me, but it seems as if you think that if one thing is not mentioned in both, then it is conflicting with the other.

I’ll get to the other stuff after my one year old goes down for his nap.

 

[bookgirl32]

Exactly. I can’t seem to find exactly what the Bereans were checking.

What scriptures were they checking?

Were they checking those scriptures to see if Jesus words and actions were pre-recorded?

Were they checking the scriptures to see if Jesus fulfilled actual preexisting prophecies?

What?

Chris

I think that’s the whole problem. I don’t think this one passage is meant to be taken as a fool-proof instruction of sola scriptura. It doesn’t mean I’m arguing with what the Bereans did.

And, again, how were the Jews getting something different out of the same thing?

 

[bookgirl32]

the point is they were testing the teachings of Paul and Slias against scripture, and they were praised for doing so.

But Chris’ point is which ones were they checking? And what exactly for or against? To assume that they were checking against the OT for a final list of the “fundamentals” is a little premature, because if they could find it there, why a NT at all?

 

[bookgirl32]

hey Pixie I was wondering if you would post on this one.

anyway I disagree; they were not accepting the oral declaration; they were checking to see if the oral declaration that Jesus was the Messiah was confirmed in the scripture before they accepted it.

But what of the Jews that read very differently into the OT. They didn’t just not want to believe and not do so without looking at the OT prohpecies. Jews now just don’t disregard Christianity, they argue from the OT. Things like Jesus being from the line of David through Mary (b/c Joseph was not His real father), that’s one of the prophecies that they see was NOT fulfilled. So do you think that the Bereans went back and asked Paul about this? Do you think Paul answered them? Do you think He said, I don’t know, they could be right, go check scripture again?

 

[JTBT]

Jews now just don’t disregard Christianity, they argue from the OT. Things like Jesus being from the line of David through Mary (b/c Joseph was not His real father),

This is a side issue, but interesting so I will comment on it, Jesus was from the line of David thought both Mary and Joseph, check me on this but Matt 1 list Mary’s line, and Luke 3 list Joseph’s line. I do not see the problem.

but back on topic, if you tell me something, and I want to check it against scripture I should not assume what you say to be true or false, I should let scripture tell me that.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

But Chris’ point is which ones were they checking? And what exactly for or against? To assume that they were checking against the OT for a final list of the “fundamentals” is a little premature, because if they could find it there, why a NT at all?

Exactly.

The Bereans could not have been searching anything but OT scriptures, as no NT writings even existed yet.

I & II Thessalonians & possibly Galations, were the first 3 NT books to be written, and they were written AFTER Paul had visited Thessalonica.

Acts 17 shows that Paul & Silas were in Berea immediately after having fled Thessalonica.

This was the first time Paul visited Thessalonica, so the earliest that Paul could have written I & II Thess. would have to be on the way to Berea. This is extremely unlikely, but even if they were written on the road to Berea, there is absolutely no reason the Bereans would have taken a letter just written by Paul to verify what he was telling them, or that such a letter could be considered as Scripture.

Additionally, the claim of the Bereans as “proof” of the sole sufficiency of scripture begs the question, as it assumes what it is supposed to prove - that they were able to interpret Scripture for themselves.

The Bible itself contradicts this assumption. Even the apostles were unable to understand all that the OT had prophesied about Jesus until He explained them Himself.

Luke 24:13-35 (note especially verse 27):
“And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”

Acts also shows that scripture had to be explained, in discussing Philip & the Ethiopian:

Acts 8:30-31, 34-35
“Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ Philip asked.
‘How can I,’ he said, ‘unless someone explains it to me?’ So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”
“The eunuch asked Philip, ‘Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?’
Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.”

Philip explained the Scriptures to the eunuch to show that it prophesied about Jesus, His death, & His resurrection.

By JTBT
but back on topic, if you tell me something, and I want to check it against scripture I should not assume what you say to be true or false, I should let scripture tell me that.

Whether you want to check a teaching against Scriptures or not, you should do so.

But neither should you assume that the Scriptures are self-interpreting, especially since the Bible itself repeatedly refutes that assumption.

The Biblical refutation of this claim is why sola scriptura is self-defeating.

Regards,

Chris

 

[JTBT]

The Biblical refutation of this claim is why sola scriptura is self-defeating.

sola scriptura is not the strawman of solo scriptura

 

[bookgirl32]

This is a side issue, but interesting so I will comment on it, Jesus was from the line of David thought both Mary and Joseph, check me on this but Matt 1 list Mary’s line, and Luke 3 list Joseph’s line. I do not see the problem.

but back on topic, if you tell me something, and I want to check it against scripture I should not assume what you say to be true or false, I should let scripture tell me that.

No, it’s not a side issue. It’s proof that even then, when the apostles were alive, that people could look at scripture and get different conclusions.

The problem with Jesus being from the Davidic line (according to some of the Jews, not me), was that it was not accepted for Him to be of the Davidic line maternally. He was NOT Joseph’s biological son. So He HAD to have been of the Davidic line through Mary. They actually had what they CLAIM to be basis through scripture. THere were two interpretations, one was correct.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

hey Pixie I was wondering if you would post on this one.

anyway I disagree; they were not accepting the oral declaration; they were checking to see if the oral declaration that Jesus was the Messiah was confirmed in the scripture before they accepted it.

But they also believed everything else that the Apostles told them about Jesus that wasn’t explicitly spelled out in the OT. AND, some Jews read the same scriptures and refused to see Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecies. Much like non-Catholics today read the same Bible and come to conflicting and contradictory conclusions about what the text says and form their own denominations based on their private interpretation. Contrary to popular non-Catholic opinion, the Scriptures are not self-interpreting.

Also, I think of in Acts where the Ethiopian that Philip brought to Christ didn’t understand what he was reading in Isaiah, until Philip explained it to him. We need an authoritative teacher (in other words, something besides the Scriptures themselves) to help us understand the Scriptures. Scripture itself teaches us this! The question then is, whose interpretation would be the most accurate - that of the men who actually wrote the stuff down and explained it to their successors, or men 1800 years removed from the time of Christ, who deny the teachings of the apostles?

 

[SyCarl]

But they also believed everything else that the Apostles told them about Jesus that wasn’t explicitly spelled out in the OT. AND, some Jews read the same scriptures and refused to see Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecies. Much like non-Catholics today read the same Bible and come to conflicting and contradictory conclusions about what the text says and form their own denominations based on their private interpretation. Contrary to popular non-Catholic opinion, the Scriptures are not self-interpreting.

Also, I think of in Acts where the Ethiopian that Philip brought to Christ didn’t understand what he was reading in Isaiah, until Philip explained it to him. We need an authoritative teacher (in other words, something besides the Scriptures themselves) to help us understand the Scriptures. Scripture itself teaches us this! The question then is, whose interpretation would be the most accurate - that of the men who actually wrote the stuff down and explained it to their successors, or men 1800 years removed from the time of Christ, who deny the teachings of the apostles?

People can disbelieve in Jesus whether or not they use the Scripture or are told orally. It has nothing to do with the sufficiency of Scripture.

With respect to the Ethiopian eunech, reading the surrounding verses shows what he really needed to know was who the prophesy applied to. Once Philip
explained it, it was up to the Eunech to decide whether to believe what he was told about Jesus.

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: "HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH. “IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.” The eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?" Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
(Acts 8:30-35 NASB)

As the New Testament had not been wriiten yet, any Bible alone person would agree that he had to be told about Jesus orally. Now he could look to the New Testament.

As to requiring someone in authority to teach him, as John Chrysostom points oint, the eunech didn’t have any idea who Philip was until afterwards. The eunech was not relying on his authority.

But why did the Spirit of the Lord bear him away? (Hereby) the occurrence was shown to be more wonderful. Even then, the eunuch did not know him. Consequently this was done, that Philip might afterwards be a subject of wonder to him. (Homilies on Acts, No. 19)
newadvent.org/fathers/210119.htm