Sola Scriptura Christians and Act 17:11

  • Thread starter Thread starter Micael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Micael:
In a discussion with a Sola Scriptura Christian he has mentioned 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 know their are several other verses which state the church of the living God as the foundation of truth. However, how can I clarify to him that even though this is mentioned, ultimatly its the Church with gives and guides one to the truth even to what it interpreted in scripture.

I figured that this statement refering to the Bereans was made with regard to the Biblical proof of the fulfillment of Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, as those were the “Scriptures” they were refering to. However, once you believe Paul does speak truth then you must accept the truth found in the new testament which teaches that Christ’s church, is the pilar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Is there anything more convincing particularly regarding these apparent Sola Scipturist of the New Testament?
This verese doesn’t say “examined the scriptures ALONE”, does it?
 
First of all, the practice of citing individual early Christian writers or fathers, or small groups, to claim ideas against those taught by the Church is meaningless. If one reads through the writings of Church fathers and early Christians, it’s possible to find many incorrect points, some of them VERY incorrect. These men were perfectly fallible and taught (some more than others) mistaken things.

Secondly, some of the things he wrote of were not minor things. He writes of blessing water, for instance. Many Protestants Sola Scriptura folk would condemn this act. His use of a lowercase ‘t’ means nothing. Firstly, it is merely a translation. Secondly, the dichotomy between upper and lower case t tradition didn’t exist at the time.

Thirdly, he clearly did not mean to refer to minor things:
Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?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."
He puts a lot of weight into this statement. He here speaks of treating these things with the utmost security. He acts not as though these things are unimportant, “lowercase t” traditions, but as things which are very sacred and which the “uninititated” aren’t even allowed to know about. Clearly these are not unimportant, but teachings of great importance that he refers to.

Fourthly, insofar as is concerned letter 238, to whom is he writing? If to clergy or to other officials of the Church, then his statement would NOT mean to say that the everyday person has the counsel of the Holy Spirit to reach the proper conclusions, but only clergy of the Church.
 
40.png
kaycee:
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!
You mean I don’t have a good working knowledge of what you mean by sola scriptura. Your quotes do not address Acts 17:11.
 
40.png
Micael:
In a discussion with a Sola Scriptura Christian he has mentioned 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 know their are several other verses which state the church of the living God as the foundation of truth. However, how can I clarify to him that even though this is mentioned, ultimatly its the Church with gives and guides one to the truth even to what it interpreted in scripture.

I figured that this statement refering to the Bereans was made with regard to the Biblical proof of the fulfillment of Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, as those were the “Scriptures” they were refering to. However, once you believe Paul does speak truth then you must accept the truth found in the new testament which teaches that Christ’s church, is the pilar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Is there anything more convincing particularly regarding these apparent Sola Scipturist of the New Testament?
  • It pays to know that reformers HAVE TO BELIEVE in “sola scriptura”. …for their eternal security.
    much like we catholics, if we do not believe THE EUCHARIST …we have no covenant with God.
    When ** the Bereans** studied the “scriptures”, it was the Torah,(the Old testament only) that they studied…
the New Testament was still over 300 years in the future. there was NO “BIBLE” yet.
The Apostolic Authority determined what would be “The Bible” once and for all time in 393 & 397.

Today when even-jelly-culls say “the scriptures” they mean “The Bible” but if you try to hold anyone to "the Bible only…(sola - scriptura) …
one would have to declare ALL CHRISTIANS who were IN before “the bible” came into being as “LOST” because none of them ever read “THE BIBLE”
…all that was available for them was the Torah.

When they make these atrocious statements… I believe God laughs at them, So I have a good laugh too. 😃

gusano *
 
40.png
kaycee:
Credit to Jason Engwer
All of your justifications come from the most vehement anti-Catholic apologists that exist on this planet.
Kaycee, instead of just regurgitating what these revisionists spew forth, sit down and prayerfully read what the EFC’s have to say and how their writings are a wonderful complement to Sacred Scripture. You will see that the Catholic Church has taught the Truth for 2000 years and the gates of hell shall not prevail. Turn your heart back to the Apostolic Church instead of being poisoned by traditions of men. Do not be deceived by wolves in sheeps clothing.
 
40.png
Mickey:
All of your justifications come from the most vehement anti-Catholic apologists that exist on this planet.
Kaycee, instead of just regurgitating what these revisionists spew forth, sit down and prayerfully read what the EFC’s have to say and how their writings are a wonderful complement to Sacred Scripture. You will see that the Catholic Church has taught the Truth for 2000 years and the gates of hell shall not prevail. Turn your heart back to the Apostolic Church instead of being poisoned by traditions of men. Do not be deceived by wolves in sheeps clothing.
Are ad hom attacks considered arguments? Should I poison the well further and call you anti-protestant.

I know whom I have believed. I believe its Faith in the Savior not faith in the institution that saves.
 
40.png
kaycee:
Are ad hom attacks considered arguments? Should I poison the well further and call you anti-protestant.

I know whom I have believed. I believe its Faith in the Savior not faith in the institution that saves.
You’re right, it is only the Savior that saves.

But the Savior told us to follow His institution.

And He also told us to listen to him: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

If you want to understand why the Bible is not the only source of information about Christ, read this: lazerliek42.tripod.com/sola.htm

Additionally, consider that the book of John tells us that not everything Jesus said was written down. Obviously everything that Jesus said is vitally important. The Church has passed down everything that Christ taught, not just that which was written. Should we ignore our Savior simply because some mere human being forgot to write it down? We know some did, as John tells us.
 
Also remember that there is nothing wrong with terms such as anti-Catholic PROVIDED, and ONLY provided that they are true.

Our Lord called men vipers and other terrible names, but he did so only because it was true. He was simply calling a spade a spade, as the saying goes. He was calling it like it is.

There are plenty of Protestants who argue with respect and humbleness, as St. Paul intrsucted us to do, and whom have at heart only the greater glory of God and salvation for all men as their goal.

Unfortunately, there are also Protestants who argue with nothing but vicious words and even known-lies to prove their points, and whose words are full of hate. When speaking of these men, we need not spare harsh criticism, just as we need not spare compliments when speaking of those Protestants to which I above referred.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
First of all, the practice of citing individual early Christian writers or fathers, or small groups, to claim ideas against those taught by the Church is meaningless. If one reads through the writings of Church fathers and early Christians, it’s possible to find many incorrect points, some of them VERY incorrect. These men were perfectly fallible and taught (some more than others) mistaken things.
Were the errors being taught under the authority of the Church binding upon the faithful? Certainly they were being taught as truth at the time. How was the error corrected?
He puts a lot of weight into this statement. He here speaks of treating these things with the utmost security. He acts not as though these things are unimportant, “lowercase t” traditions, but as things which are very sacred and which the “uninititated” aren’t even allowed to know about. Clearly these are not unimportant, but teachings of great importance that he refers to.
I would like to know of these very important traditions not found in Scripture. Can you list a few of them for me? Considering they are binding and must be believed by the faithful.
Fourthly, insofar as is concerned letter 238, to whom is he writing? If to clergy or to other officials of the Church, then his statement would NOT mean to say that the everyday person has the counsel of the Holy Spirit to reach the proper conclusions, but only clergy of the Church.
I do not agree.
Pe 2:9 - But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; Want to amend your statement?
 
40.png
kaycee:
Are ad hom attacks considered arguments? Should I poison the well further and call you anti-protestant.

I know whom I have believed. I believe its Faith in the Savior not faith in the institution that saves.
How I love it when people start with their ad hom accusations. I get quite a kick out of that. 😃
Have I set up any straw men yet? That’s another one of those wonderful terms that the professional debaters use. 😃
Yes. You could call me an anti-protestant, but it would not be true. Besides, I’m not protesting protestantism. I love my non-Catholic brothers and sisters. But I also know anti-Catholicism when I read/hear it. But hey, I can’t judge them either, right?

No kaycee, I am not attacking you. In fact, I am praying for you. If I remember correctly, you used to be in the fulness of Truth and somehow you were lead away. You seem to quote the people that you derive your theology from quite often. All I’m saying is to read Scripture–and the way the ECF’S and the Catholic/Orthodox Church interprets those Scriptures—with an open heart. Nothing more. Nothing less. May God watch over you on your journey.

Peace,
Mickey
 
Were the errors being taught under the authority of the Church binding upon the faithful? Certainly they were being taught as truth at the time. How was the error corrected?
These things were not being taught under the authority of the Church nor were they binding, nor even taught as truth at the time in most cases. They were simply theological writings done by men who felt like doing them. Some of them may have had purposes, such as the same purpose I have in writing here(explanation/apologetics), and some of them may simply have been writings done by these men to put their thoughts on paper. Most of history’s great thinkers, both of theology and of more worldly things, have chosen to write down their thoughts simply for the sake of doing so. I am no great thinker, but even I write essays on theology for nobody to see and just for the sake of doing so.
I would like to know of these very important traditions not found in Scripture. Can you list a few of them for me? Considering they are binding and must be believed by the faithful.
These important traditions are whichever ones Basil was talking about in his writing. It is possible he defined them in a part of the writing before your quotation begins, or it is possible that his writing was in response to another letter which mentions the traditions. He lists some examples in his quote, and he may actually feel that they are of great importance, even though we personally may not. My point was not that WHAT he describes were very important from my perspective, but that the LANGUAGE he used to describe them is language of great reverence, security, and importance. Basil talks about these things in a way that one would only talk about things that were of importance and treats them as teachings which must be protected and preserved.

The priesthood bit has been answered time and time again. Essentially, it draws a distinction between the priesthood of all believers, which is true, and the ordained priesthood. It is simply not possible to deny the concept of having leaders in the Church and those holding the positions that priests do today. The Holy Bible makes reference to bishops, presbyters, and elders. Clearly there is a distinction. Reference James 5:14, where James instructs the sick to call upon the elders of the Church. If there were nothing to distinguish these persons, there would be no reason to call specifically upon them. I am only scratching the surface of this topic. There’s a million of sources out there.

In fact, if you wish to cite Church fathers, more than necessary can be provided to back up the idea of ordained priests.

Check here
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
But the Savior told us to follow His institution.
This must be one of those unwritten oral sayings of Jesus. :rolleyes:
And He also told us to listen to him: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
john 15:12 “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.”

Mark 12:30 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31 "The second is this, `YOU R429 SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these."
Additionally, consider that the book of John tells us that not everything Jesus said was written down. Obviously everything that Jesus said is vitally important. The Church has passed down everything that Christ taught, not just that which was written.
I would be very interested in hearing these oral sayings of vital importance. Can you list a few?
Should we ignore our Savior simply because some mere human being forgot to write it down? We know some did, as John tells us.
Are you asserting that God could not get everything he wanted us to know into scripture because humans forgot to write it down or God was limited to factors not in his control? :eek:
God is thwarted by human weekness? :eek:

John 20:30 And truly Jesus **did many other signs ** in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

First,I believe your assertion is incorrect. The verses state that many signs or “many other things that Jesus did” were not written down. I dont believe John says, not everything Jesus said was written down.

If God had John write those things down for the purpose of our salvation. John 20:31; What was the purpose of the Oral sayings? Certainly according to John the written word is for our salvation. Can you tell me the purpose of the Oral word?

2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
 
40.png
kaycee:
2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Note that it says “All” not “Only”. 😃
 
40.png
kaycee:
I would be very interested in hearing these oral sayings of vital importance. Can you list a few?
Here’s one of many. Would you like us all to keep posting more?

St Hippolytus

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).
 
Protestants do tend to counter this criticism by pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NIV) However, this passage does not say anything about Scripture alone being sufficient or allowed. This passage makes clear 2 points. First, it tells us that all Scripture is inspired by God. This is very important, and all Christians agree on this. Second, it tells us that all Scripture is beneficial, and that we can learn from all Scripture. This is also very important. What it does not say is that Scripture is the only thing that is beneficial. Protestants tend to point to the ending: “so that man may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” However, all this speaks of is that Scripture will help men to be thoroughly equipped, or complete. It says that Scripture can finish the job, it does not say that Scripture must begin the job too. If a proponent of Sola Scriptura wishes to use this passage as proof, however, he has a problem, because Ephesians 4:11-13 says something very similar in reference to pastors:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (NIV)

Read this verse carefully. It tells us that pastors and teachers will prepare God’s people for service, build them up, bring them to unity in the faith (which means they will all believe the same thing, an important point which will be touched on later), and attain the fullness of Christ. This passage tells us that pastors and teachers will lead us to the fullness of Christ! That would seem to mean that we do not even need Scripture! Of course no Christian, Catholic or Protestant, would interpret this passage to mean that we do not need Scripture. However, if one is to read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 so straightforwardly, then one must also read Ephesians 4:11-13 the same way.
 
john 15:12 “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.”
Mark 12:30 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31 “The second is this, `YOU R429 SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment GREATER than these.”
Note that Jesus did not say there is no commandment OTHER than these. In fact, clearly He gives us other commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
I hope you don’t wish to deny these commandments too, just because loving God and one another are the greatest commandments. 😦
 
40.png
kaycee:
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.
But still held by Eastern Rite Catholics.

But how can St. Basil the Great be following sola scriptura, when he is going against scripture by speaking of “small t” traditions of men?
 
Jesus’ unwritten statements are exactly those which the Church has sustained for 2000 years in Tradition (capital T, not lowercase t tradition)

It’s very important to understand that Tradition, and all the important things that Protestants argue against, are NOT traditions developed by the Church over the 2000 years, but Traditions which have been passed down for 2000 years and where originally taught by the Apostles themselves. How do we know this? The men who directly served under the Apostles, like Polycarp and especially Clement, tell us so.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
These important traditions are whichever ones Basil was talking about in his writing. It is possible he defined them in a part of the writing before your quotation begins, or it is possible that his writing was in response to another letter which mentions the traditions. He lists some examples in his quote, and he may actually feel that they are of great importance, even though we personally may not. My point was not that WHAT he describes were very important from my perspective, but that the LANGUAGE he used to describe them is language of great reverence, security, and importance. Basil talks about these things in a way that one would only talk about things that were of importance and treats them as teachings which must be protected and preserved.
It just strikes me a bit strange that there are all these very important Traditions that we must keep on par with Scripture, but for some reason none can be recounted, BUT we must keep them? :confused:
Certainly something that is of “great importance” that must be “protected and preserved” must be known to someone! Yet there is no official canon of Big T tradition. :rolleyes:
 
2Pe 3:15 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you.
2Pe 3:16 He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top