those pesky bereans!

  • Thread starter Thread starter bengal_fan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
manualman said:
I don’t see what protestants see here. I see Paul congratulating the Bereans for being more than fair weather converts. They aren’t content to simply be swept up in the emotion of conversion, they don’t want just the short version of this vision of faith. They want the whole deal. They want to see how the scriptures square with what Paul is preaching. They aren’t content to learn rules and rote, but want to know the principles and reason that supports them.

This is what we are all called to do as catholics. Catholics don’t proclaim the superiority of Tradition to Scripture. We call them the TWO pillars. Nothing in Tradition contradicts or can contradict anything in scripture (understood properly). Ever read Lumen Gentium? Paul would praise it the same way he did the Bereans. His praise is about comprehension and depth, not skepticism of legitimate authority.
Click to expand...
by what you say here it sounds as if scripture is subject to Tradition. by saying “scripture (understood properly)” is, in a sense, saying scripture as understood through Tradition. you see that it is still putting one above the other?
 
mercygate said:
In reality, this is not possible. Scripture is read in the fulness of truth only from the heart of the Church. As King Solomon counsels: “lean not unto thine own understanding.”

A person with the wisdom of the ages at his disposal – Wisdom guided by the promise of Christ to His Church – thinks his own little pea brain trumps the Church that gave him the Scriptures?

Astounding.
Click to expand...
well, the orthodox seem to have found fault in that church. do they have pea brains as well?
 
MarcoPolo said:
I thought mine was pretty good, bengal. 🙂 Not to mention this interpretation puts the authors and assemblers of the Septuagint as a higher authority than Paul.
Click to expand...
not exactly. it puts the written word over oral teaching. not that oral teaching doesn’t come with some authority (we are talking Paul here!!) but it seems to say that everything Paul says is subject to each and every berean searching the scriptures to see if what he says is true.
 
mercygate said:
We converts who struggled with the Catholic faith certainly do not read to “justify a cause.”
Click to expand...
Certainly not all. But the human mind generally works that way. Finding justifications for what we favor. Thats why even muslim converts are saying that reading the Quran with an open mind would make anyone a muslim. How do you explain that? Its the commonly traveled path by converts: from 3 to 2 to 1. Disillusionment, an unbiased exposure to a new idea, finding justifications to the newly favoured idea. Its all a matter of perspective. Thats why even clerics change sides. pastors to priests. priests to imams. imams to pastors.

You are obviously now on #1.
mercygate said:
If you start from zero and read your way up WITH the Church, the whole picture makes sense in a way that none of your other little scenarios possibly can. The integrity is unassailable. No. It can be assaulted. But it cannot be breached.
Click to expand...
People who leave it is a form of breach. The loss of power is a form of breach. This is true for every religion.
 
Bengal,
I think that you will not find a good reply on here for one reason: your argument is structured too well. This verse does have the aspect that you want it to have. It may or may not be the only interpretation. I feel that it is not, but that is me. Now, can you formulate a longer proof, incorporating other verses, that says that both tradition and scripture are important, but in the end scripture is the main difference maker without getting too Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)?

AT,
If your sincere study leads you away from the church, so be it. However, be careful that you did not study with an agenda or with a preconceived notion. It is too easy, WAY TOO EASY, to make the Bible say what it does not say. Look at what some Muslims post about it. I feel that if studied honestly, you end up in Rome, not away from it.
 
ralphinal said:
If your sincere study leads you away from the church, so be it. However, be careful that you did not study with an agenda or with a preconceived notion. . . …
Click to expand...
Just adding emphasis for emphasis’ sake.
 
bengal_fan said:
not exactly. it puts the written word over oral teaching. not that oral teaching doesn’t come with some authority (we are talking Paul here!!) but it seems to say that everything Paul says is subject to each and every berean searching the scriptures to see if what he says is true.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and stand by my posts on the matter, that authority certainly is with appointed teachers (c.f. Luke 10:16, Acts 1:8, etc.) and was so well prior to the writing of a single NT Scripture.

…but honestly I respect you too much to bang heads with you too much on this one. 😃
 
bengal_fan said:
by what you say here it sounds as if scripture is subject to Tradition. by saying “scripture (understood properly)” is, in a sense, saying scripture as understood through Tradition. you see that it is still putting one above the other?
Click to expand...
Scripture is quite simply NOT self-interpreting. Surely you can agree. A man COULD justify cutting his genitals off to eliminate the temptation to sin, but I’d hope both you and I would advise him that this is not a proper interpretation of Scripture!

Scripture quite simpy has no authority if there is no authority to cry foul when someone abuses it. You can justify nearly anything you want to with Scripture.

There are two ditches on the side of the straight and narrow path. On one side is the ditch of Sola Scriptura where each man is his own pope (the main ditch Protestants tend to fall into, and discussed above). On the other side is the ditch of ignorance where a man relies only on what he is taught by Tradition, and usually only cares to hear what minimum he must do (this ditch snares more catholics). The straight and narrow road carries men who both read and ponder Scripture and seek the (name removed by moderator)ut of Tradition to see how its sometimes seeming contradictions are actually one unified revelation of truth.

If Paul meant what YOU think he did, shouldn’t YOU also be questioning all of the New Testament authors like he praised the Bereans for? Shouldn’t you consider the NT suspect until you’ve read every word of the OT and considered its fit to Christ as the Messiah? IS this the approach you take? Why not?
 
Bengal,
By the way, I seemed to read more frustration into your op. I just read it again to check, and it still seems kind of grumpy. I hope your doing all right up there. I’ll pray for you.
 
ralphinal said:
Bengal,
By the way, I seemed to read more frustration into your op. I just read it again to check, and it still seems kind of grumpy. I hope your doing all right up there. I’ll pray for you.
Click to expand...
not grumpy… well maybe a little. just come into contact with a lot of annoying posters lately and have really been thinking about taking another long break from this site. i didn’t mean to communicate any of that in the OP though. i line up with the catholic church on so many things. so many things that i would never be able to find within protestantism (except maybe high church anglican… not too many of those in jacksonville) and orthodox is so cultural i don’t see how i could go that route. i just struggle with this issue. it seems that for all the lip service paid to the “three pillars, Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium”, most catholics i encounter (yes, even here) seem to put scripture last on that list whereas i would put scripture first on that list. the other two cannot, in any way, ever contradict scripture (not that they have mind you). if that is true, then scripture is the primary authority. Tradition should complement scripture and both are properly understood through the magisterium but scripture reigns over them all because they are the actual words of the apostles. i am rambling and i need to leave, but i appreciate your comments.
 
ralphinal said:
Bengal,
I think that you will not find a good reply on here for one reason: your argument is structured too well. This verse does have the aspect that you want it to have. It may or may not be the only interpretation. I feel that it is not, but that is me. Now, can you formulate a longer proof, incorporating other verses, that says that both tradition and scripture are important, but in the end scripture is the main difference maker without getting too Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)?
.
Click to expand...
great challenge! i can as it will be my master’s thesis. i will have to work it more and get back to you. i already have things in mind but no time… NO TIME! lol, catch you later.
 
bengal_fan said:
not grumpy… well maybe a little. just come into contact with a lot of annoying posters lately and have really been thinking about taking another long break from this site. i didn’t mean to communicate any of that in the OP though. i line up with the catholic church on so many things. so many things that i would never be able to find within protestantism (except maybe high church anglican… not too many of those in jacksonville) and orthodox is so cultural i don’t see how i could go that route. i just struggle with this issue. it seems that for all the lip service paid to the “three pillars, Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium”, most catholics i encounter (yes, even here) seem to put scripture last on that list whereas i would put scripture first on that list. the other two cannot, in any way, ever contradict scripture (not that they have mind you). if that is true, then scripture is the primary authority. Tradition should complement scripture and both are properly understood through the magisterium but scripture reigns over them all because they are the actual words of the apostles. i am rambling and i need to leave, but i appreciate your comments.
Click to expand...
YOu sound more knowledgeable and more “catholic” than some of the people I sit next to on Sunday morning.
 
BTW, the usual catholic image is of two pillars: Scripture and Tradition. The teaching authority IS subject and subordinate to both. The main reason that two pillars is such an apt image is that BOTH are required to support a beam. If either one gives way, the structure will fall. Catholics ignorant of scripture are ignorant of Christ (wish I remember who said that).
 
manualman said:
BTW, the usual catholic image is of two pillars: Scripture and Tradition. The teaching authority IS subject and subordinate to both. The main reason that two pillars is such an apt image is that BOTH are required to support a beam. If either one gives way, the structure will fall. Catholics ignorant of scripture are ignorant of Christ (wish I remember who said that).
Click to expand...
St. Jerome – the guy who translated the Bible into Latin.
 
Bengal,
I must admit that it was a combination of other posts that I have seen you put up about some other posters and some insite from years ago about you. I know how you feel about the church and it seemed too much like a trap question. Get some rest. Enjoy Christmas. Christ’s Love and Peace to you and yours.

Youknow the Church teaches that it can never contradict Scripture and so far I haven;t seen it do so. I’ve seen it accused of it, but not proven to.

I’d love to see that thesis when you get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top