Sola Scriptura Christians and Act 17:11

[auhsoj88]

Acts 17:11 : “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and** examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”**

I do not see whatsoever how this verse ratifies sola scriptura! Looking at Acts 17:11 more closely you see the Bereans “ received the message”, which must have been ORAL first, since “Paul said” so first .

The Bereans then checked the ORAL message given by Paul, and “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." So they checked ORAL against WRITTEN folks. First ORAL then WRITTEN. Sorry, but this again this does NOT ratify Sola Scriptura.

Do we give a non-believer the bible to read first so that he may learn the Trinity all by himself, or do we not orally share the Trinity doctrine first, then have him read the bible if available??? What the Bereans were simply doing is the same reason these forums even exist. That is checking what one is taught to scripture. As Catholics, we do that all the time.

During examination of Act 17:11, the following deduction can be drawn;

1.  The Bereans WERE NOT examining the scriputures to disagree with Paul, moreover to invent or interpret new doctrines;  they were ONLY checking what Paul said to Scripture.

2.  The Bereans (plural- more than one person) also agreed and accepted Truth altogether as a community of believers; as ONE body of believers.   Is Protestantism ONE body??

3.  Acts 17:11 seems to ratify the Old Testament, hence the New Testament hadn’t been written yet at the moment Acts 17:11 was spoken. How do we know the book of Acts is scripture???How do we know for sure Paul even wrote it??????

The interesting thing here, is that each of the thousands of protestant denominations ALSO use Acts 17:11 to justify why they believe what they believe, … ……but yet so many beliefs exist today in Protestantism on common issues. Why???

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans believed and were taught something FIRST before they checked it against scripture! Don’t we all do that today and right now in these forums???

As a Catholic, there is absolutely nothing the Church teaches that is outside of the FULLNESS of Scripture. However, Sola scriptura IS outside of Scriture! Hence, the Bereans would not even need Paul to explain anything had they themselves believed in JUST scripture. Think about it???

Again, the Bereans were NOT examining the scriptures for the purpose of coming up with new interpretations as so many see fit today. But instead the Bereans where checking what was already established and said by Paul to scripture. Big difference!

Since the Reformation (Revolt), can we honestly say that the Protestants are like the Bereans???

God Bless

 

[michaelgazin]

The problem with the “it refers to the normative condition of the church” belief , is that it is a direct affirmation that it must be a teaching of men, and not apostles. It is ironic that to affirm sola scriptura, the claim is that you won’t find a single apostle teaching it during revelation (a.k.a. the Bible). Red flag goes up. “We affirm this teaching isn’t in the Bible, but after the Bible was written, everything you believe must be in the Bible.”

If the doctrine existed immediately after the last apostle, then it is non-apostolic, both in practice, teaching, etc.

 

[kaycee]

thessalonian:

You just don’t get it. The Apostles could not have written about Sola Scriptura and then been telling people, “follow our traditions” as they are passed on to you from others. That would make Sola Scriptura that was supposedly in scripture a lie. Contrary to the Bible. Then they have the problem of after scripture is all written those nasty left over verses that say "follow the oral as well as the written teachings (2 Thes 2:15 comes to mind). Now those verses are a lie if SS is true. It’s just total nonsense. There is no way that Sola Scriptura could be identified in the Bible while the Apostles expected the people to rely on some oral teaching as well. Therefore the only way Sola Scriptura could be true is if it is an oral tradition. Oops, that makes it self refuting and false. This stuff by JW is the worst arguementation I have ever heard.

It is apparent you believe that the contents of Paul’s “oral traditions” are different than what he writes to the Churches. Why is this conclusion reached? Is Paul just writing the unimportant doctrine down and saving the good stuff for oral transmission?

Please tell me the contents of this oral tradition that Paul speaks of? If this tradition is binding and equal in authority to scripture, would’nt it be nice to know what it is?

 

[kaycee]

John_Henry:

And how do we know that? Where does it say that in Scripture? And if it doesn’t say that, isn’t your claim just another “nebulous, a-historical tradition”?

And when did the “normative state” kick in? 1517? Because sola scriptura wasn’t used as a “normative” principle until just about that time.

Augustine: “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.”(De bono viduitatis, 2)

Peace <><

 

[challenger]

Paul’s custom was to visit the local synagogue at each stage of his journey (Acts 17:2, 13:14). In Acts 17:3, Paul “reasoned” with the Thessalonians, “explaining” and “proving” that the Christ had to suffer. The word for “explaining” is “dianoigo.” It is used in Mark 7:34-35, Luke 2:23, 24:31-32, 45, and Acts 16:14. None of the verses simply say to “show” or “cite”, it is to “explain” or “open”. Thus, Paul “unlocked” the Scriptures for them. He did not just cite Scripture; he interpreted it.

He went on to say, “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” Again, this was an interpretation. The concept of the Christ “suffering” and “rising from the dead” was foreign to the Jews, who thought the Christ would be a king who came to depose the Romans. Paul “opened” up these Old Testament passages so that the Bereans could understand them (they were unable to identify the Messiah from Scripture alone.)

In Acts 17:5-7, Paul’s preaching of Jesus as Christ was rebuffed. When Paul made it to Berea, he went about his task just the same way: “Explaining”, etc. We have no reason to think otherwise, since this was his “custom.” Paul went about interpreting Scriptures and proclaiming Jesus as the Christ, which was, of course, an oral revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Then we see Acts 17:11.

The Bereans “received the message with great eagerness.” The message, of course, was that “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” Because of this, Luke feels there are of “more noble character than the Thessalonians.” But why are they noble?

In Acts 17:4 “some” of the Thessalonians were persuaded and joined up with Paul. However, most did not (as shown by the rioting). In Acts 17:12, “many” (as opposed to “some”) believed, and thus the Bereans were, on the whole, “more noble” than the Thessalonians.

As mentioned, Paul interpreted Scripture for the Thessalonians and Bereans, and his interpretation was the inspired word of God. Scripture was terribly obscure in many places. The Old Testament did not explicitly identify “the Christ” as “Jesus”, and thus the Jews of Berea, using only it, could not realize such. Paul needed to “reason” and “explain” (“open”) the Scriptures to them (2 Corinthians 3:14-16). Their “examination” of Scripture was a re-consideration and examination of the passages Paul mentioned.

Clearly, having a veil that prevents understanding of Scripture is not a terribly effective way to go about “sola scriptura” (and only going by sola scriptura after you have accepted extra-Biblical authorities-that is, Paul’s interpretation- is rather insensible.) Paul “took the veil away”, and then the Jew could read something like Isaiah 53 in a new light (examining the Scriptures to see if these things were so).

Further, how reasonable is it to say that someone was noble for adhering to sola scriptura, when their sola scriptura was only the Old Testament? Indeed, that is certainly all the Bereans had. Such a sufficiency of Scripture would discredit the New Testament.
Also, since even as Protestant apologist James White admits, “sola scriptura was not a valid concept during times of revelation,” then in no way could Luke be trying to teach sola scriptura. If he were teaching it, he’d be foisting an invalid concept on his readers.

 

[Luke_4_4]

Where does the bible say that anyone other than the apostles in the bible would be considerd apostles by God? Catholics seem to think they have the athority to apoint appostles anytime they want. The appostles in the bible were appointed by jesus. nowhere asre we told that we can just choose someone else to be an appostle, and now because we call him an appostle his traditons must be correct. Thats absolutely ludacris.

The scripture says to follow the traditions of the word and of the apostles. Is the written new testment not the teachings and the traditions of the apostles and jesus. The traditions of the apostles were not things that the apostles just made up. they were the things that jesus was teaching. The scripture is telling us to to follow the traditions of the apostles because they were doing the things that jesus comanded us to do. They were an example to us. That doesn’t mean that if they just made something up out of nowhere it would now be considered part of Gods way.

Of course the apostles werent teacing the people of that time sola scriptura because they were right there teaching Gods ways in person. They werent written down yet. they werent even finished teaching them yet. Do you really think God would leave the fate of his people in the hands of some stupid humans. People are stupid. They make mistakes, they sin, they lie, they cheat. Hardly a foundation to build a church on.

 

[Luke1_48]

Luke 4:4:

Where does the bible say that anyone other than the apostles in the bible would be considerd apostles by God? Catholics seem to think they have the athority to apoint appostles anytime they want.

No, we believe the Apostles taught and appointed successors, aka Bishops, which the Holy Spirit chose to shepheard the Church of God.
Luke 4:4:

The appostles in the bible were appointed by jesus. nowhere asre we told that we can just choose someone else to be an appostle, and now because we call him an appostle his traditons must be correct. Thats absolutely ludacris.

Well now, St. Paul is considered an Apostle, yet he wasn’t one of the original 12. But besides that, we do not believe there are anymore apostles, we believe they left and taught successors, bishops.
Luke 4:4:

The scripture says to follow the traditions of the word and of the apostles.

That’s what Catholics do.
Luke4:4:

Is the written new testment not the teachings and the traditions of the apostles and jesus. The traditions of the apostles were not things that the apostles just made up. they were the things that jesus was teaching. The scripture is telling us to to follow the traditions of the apostles because they were doing the things that jesus comanded us to do. They were an example to us. That doesn’t mean that if they just made something up out of nowhere it would now be considered part of Gods way.

The Church has not invented stuff, the church defines existing things.
Luke 4:4:

Of course the apostles werent teacing the people of that time sola scriptura because they were right there teaching Gods ways in person. They werent written down yet. they werent even finished teaching them yet. Do you really think God would leave the fate of his people in the hands of some stupid humans. People are stupid.

Which was my point. If some one states that the Early Church did not practice Sola Scriptura, because they were receiving their teachings from the Apostles, then that means the New Testament cannot support Sola Scriptura. Escpecially Acts 17:11.
Luke 4:4:

They make mistakes, they sin, they lie, they cheat. Hardly a foundation to build a church on.

Yes, yes they can. Which is why Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. The Holy Spirit leads the Church and protects it from error.

 

[kaycee]

challenger:

Clearly, having a veil that prevents understanding of Scripture is not a terribly effective way to go about “sola scriptura” (and only going by sola scriptura after you have accepted extra-Biblical authorities-that is, Paul’s interpretation- is rather insensible.) Paul “took the veil away”, and then the Jew could read something like Isaiah 53 in a new light (examining the Scriptures to see if these things were so).

Further, how reasonable is it to say that someone was noble for adhering to sola scriptura, when their sola scriptura was only the Old Testament? Indeed, that is certainly all the Bereans had. Such a sufficiency of Scripture would discredit the New Testament.
Also, since even as Protestant apologist James White admits, “sola scriptura was not a valid concept during times of revelation,” then in no way could Luke be trying to teach sola scriptura. If he were teaching it, he’d be foisting an invalid concept on his readers.

You clearly do not have a good working knowledge of what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Maybe Augustine and other church fathers can help explain.

Augustine:
“What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (De bono viduitatis, 2)”

Basil of Caesarea:
“The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. (Moralia, 72:1)”

Cyril of Jerusalem:
“In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures 4:17)”

Jude 1:3 - Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly **for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. **

The Deposit of the Faith was preached and written during the times of the Apostles. We were to adhere to their teaching both verbally and written when they were still alive. Since they are now home with the Lord we can only adhere to their teaching via the word. Jude says "contend earnestly **for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ** The teachings of God thru the apostles are infallible in scripture. Sola Scriptura says that the God Breathed word is are only infallible authority!

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

kaycee:

Augustine: “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.”(De bono viduitatis, 2)

Peace <><

I love when non-Catholics try to use St. Augustine to support themselves.

Augustine also summed the whole matter up succinctly when he said that he would not believe anything unless the Catholic Church told him so. But you won’t take his advice on that now will you?

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Luke 4:4:

Do you really think God would leave the fate of his people in the hands of some stupid humans.

People are stupid. They make mistakes, they sin, they lie, they cheat. Hardly a foundation to build a church on.And yet that is quite factually just exactly what Our Blessed Lord chose to do!
John 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Sola scriptura is just plain wrong, and all the out of context quotes of the ECF in the world will not ever make it what they taught and believed.

 

[Mickey]

2Rollin'Stoned:

I love when non-Catholics try to use St. Augustine to support themselves.

It seems that when a protestant finds himself/herself losing a debate, their last ditch effort is to quote some Church Fathers out of context. This ironic because most protestants will refuse to entertain the writings of the ECF when it doesn’t support their point of view.

 

[Mickey]

Augustine

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” **(*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
**
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” **(*Letter to Januarius *[A.D. 400]).
**

 

[Luke1_48]

kaycee:

Cyril of Jerusalem:
“In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures 4:17)”

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (*Catechetical Lectures *2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

 

[Luke1_48]

kaycee:

Basil of Caesarea:
“The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. (Moralia, 72:1)”

Basil the Great, aka Basil of Caesarea:

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (*The Holy Spirit *27:66 [A.D. 375])

 

[John_Henry]

Augustine

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” **(*On Baptism, Against the Donatists ***5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” **(*Letter to Januarius ***[A.D. 400]).

Hey, Mickey, isn’t the silence deafening? I wouldn’t expect much in terms of a response to your point.

 

[Lazerlike42]

In regards to Basil the Great there, I would also speculate (though I have no formal knowledge of this) that the term “foreign” is something which at the time of his writing held the concept of contradiction, not simply exclusion.

Far too often people misuse (even unknowingly) early writings because they don’t take into account the differences in word meanings that have developed over hundreds and thousands of years.

 

[kaycee]

2Rollin'Stoned:

I love when non-Catholics try to use St. Augustine to support themselves.

Augustine also summed the whole matter up succinctly when he said that he would not believe anything unless the Catholic Church told him so. But you won’t take his advice on that now will you?

I agree with Augustine, I just dont read into the text “20th century Roman catholic institution”. Augustine had no concept of that church and meant the universal body of believers, including the eastern rite churches

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

kaycee:

I agree with Augustine, I just dont read into the text “20th century Roman catholic institution”. Augustine had no concept of that church and meant the universal body of believers, including the eastern rite churches

Yeah, but that’s what Augustine meant and that’s how he meant it.

 

[Lazerlike42]

kaycee:

I agree with Augustine, I just dont read into the text “20th century Roman catholic institution”. Augustine had no concept of that church and meant the universal body of believers, including the eastern rite churches

That doesn’t even make sense

How could the "universal body of believers’ tell Augustine anything? Do you mean that if any one person in the body told him something? Do you mean that if the consensus told him so? (If you do, then that is troubling given what the consensus of all believers might tell us today!)

Further, at the time Augustine, there was but one Church. There was no Latin rite, no Eastern rite, or anything similar. There was simply The Church.

Augustine could not possibly have been referring to anything other than a definite, authoritative body when he mentions the Church, otherwise his statements don’t make any sense whatsoever.

 

[kaycee]

Luke1:48:

Basil the Great, aka Basil of Caesarea:

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (*The Holy Spirit *27:66 [A.D. 375])

When read the quote in context it loses its intended weight. We find it relates to facing the east, sign of the cross, etc… Apparently “small t” traditions. Not binding. Some “tradition” not held by Roman Catholics today.

"‘Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term’ .
“For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.” (The Holy Spirit, 27:66)

Basil refers to relatively minor practices, some of which Roman Catholics don’t follow. Despite what Basil says above, he advocates something closely resembling sola scriptura elsewhere. For example:

"Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right." (Letter 283)

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379) We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series Prolegomena, 2. Work, 3. Ascetic (iii).

Credit to Jason Engwer