Why do some non-Catholics believe that the Bereans were scripture alone proponents?

[joe370]

Your thoughts regarding the following:

Protestants, like certain family members of mine, as well as some here at CAF, often cite Acts 17 to support the practice of sola scriptura, but I don’t understand why. We see the Bereans searching the Torah just as the Thessalonians did, but unlike the Thessalonians (true sola scriptura proponents) - the Bereans were willing to accept the word of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be scripture, that is, the Law, Psalms and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel as opposed to tradition, it is clear that the Bereans were willing to accept new oral revelation that was not contained in what they believed to be sacred scripture, something the Thessalonians were not willing to do, making them authentic sola scriptura proponents.

The Bereans embraced both oral teachings and the tradition of the apostles, as equal to what they identified as sacred scripture, (the Law, Psalms and the Prophets) - in addition to, and as an extension of, the Torah, again, something the Thessalonians outright rejected because they couldn’t find it in the scriptures, and their decision was not unjustified if you view things from their scriptural perspective. After all, how could their long awaited Messiah, coming from God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? No doubt they thought:

What kind of king and Messiah would that be Paul?

The Thessalonians, unlike the Bereans, viewed Paul’s new teachings, be it oral or in written form, as foreign and contradictory to their scriptures, which is why the following happened:

“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, [the law, psalm and the prophets[/COLOR]] - explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.”

 

[Phreeque]

The Bereans [SIGN]verified[/SIGN] from the Scriptures what Paul was preaching to them, and the Scriptures backed up what he said. Paul was not dredging stuff up out of his own imagination, or from Greek and Arab philosophers; he used the O.T. as his hardcore proof. The Scriptures were primary, and Paul’s “status” was secondary; if Paul’s message had not been consistent with the Scriptures, the Bereans would have rejected it. They didn’t treat him as some sort of infallible guru; he was merely a messenger, and they deferred not to him, but to the O.T., as their ultimate arbiter of truth.

After all, Christ was profusely prefigured throughout the O.T (the prophecies being the most obvious, of course). During His years of ministry, Jesus was already doing with the disciples what Paul later did with the Bereans. Think of the disciples and the Bible study Jesus gave to them on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24:27: “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Or how about John 5:39? “[the Scriptures] are they which testify of Me.” The first section of the Scriptures was replete with references/allusions to The Savior. Paul had only to capitalize on those.

You wrote: “The Thessalonians, unlike the Bereans, viewed Paul’s new teachings, be it oral or in written form, as foreign and contradictory to their scriptures, which is why the following happened…”

Actually, look carefully: the key to their behavior is not their putting Scripture first, but rather “they were jealous” (cf Acts 5:17 for another example of it). Not to mention that, contrary to what you claim, they did NOT go by the Scriptures, but rather by their traditions (Talmud), which of course Jesus repeatedly condemned. Also don’t forget that not everyone is destined to salvation: (Acts 13:48) “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

The Word repeatedly exhorts us to examine what is set before us as truth, the most compelling example being where Paul in Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Does this verse not bowl you over? “Even if we…”! He means apostles, clerics, religious leaders. Implication? You the individual believer need to test everything you hear from a pulpit or read in a pamphlet or book. (1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1 Jn. 4:1: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God”) But what do you use as the litmus test? What is the foolproof safeguard of your soul? The Scriptures, plain and simple.

 

[asd72]

I think they were just checking the prophecy that Paul had probably explained Jesus fulfilled. Perhaps typology too.

They then had to go beyond scripture to accept and believe that Jesus had given authority to the Apostles, because there was no New Testament as such. They had to accept the teaching of the Apostles by word of mouth or letters (some of which ended up in the New Testament eventually).

 

[joe370]

Phreeque;8505923]The Bereans [SIGN]verified[/SIGN] from the Scriptures what Paul was preaching to them, and the Scriptures backed up what he said. Paul was not dredging stuff up out of his own imagination, or from Greek and Arab philosophers; he used the O.T. as his hardcore proof. The Scriptures were primary, and Paul’s “status” was secondary; if Paul’s message had not been consistent with the Scriptures, the Bereans would have rejected it.

I agree that they went to their scriptures to verify the prophecies put forth by Paul regarding Jesus, but like asd72 said:

“They then had to go beyond scripture to accept and believe that Jesus had given authority to the Apostles, because there was no New Testament as such. They had to accept the teaching of the Apostles by word of mouth or letters (some of which ended up in the New Testament eventually).” Their scriptures nowhere suggested that apostles possessed divine authority to teach and preach what they would have considered, a new gospel even though what Paul was teaching and preaching was the new found hidden in the old. Not to mention the fact that not all the prophecies are crystal clear. Isaiah 7:14 for example.

You wrote: “The Thessalonians, unlike the Bereans, viewed Paul’s new teachings, be it oral or in written form, as foreign and contradictory to their scriptures, which is why the following happened…”

Actually, look carefully: the key to their behavior is not their putting Scripture first, but rather “they were jealous” (cf Acts 5:17 for another example of it). Not to mention that, contrary to what you claim, they did NOT go by the Scriptures, but rather by their traditions (Talmud), which of course Jesus repeatedly condemned. Also don’t forget that not everyone is destined to salvation: (Acts 13:48) “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

Where does scripture suggest that the Thessalonians, upon hearing Paul’s new claims, rejected them because they did NOT go by the Scriptures but rather the Talmud?

The Word repeatedly exhorts us to examine what is set before us as truth, the most compelling example being where Paul in Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Does this verse not bowl you over?

Sure but how can you and I, upon reading our scriptures, (“ultimate arbiter of truth”) - know who is the one preaching a gospel that is contrary to the one found in the scripture? For example:

One person says: the Eucharist is a symbolic meal only.

Another person says: the Eucharist is real food and real drink.

Scripture as the Christians "ultimate arbiter of truth"does not resolve the dispute.

 

[joe370]

I think they were just checking the prophecy that Paul had probably explained Jesus fulfilled. Perhaps typology too.

They then had to go beyond scripture to accept and believe that Jesus had given authority to the Apostles, because there was no New Testament as such. They had to accept the teaching of the Apostles by word of mouth or letters (some of which ended up in the New Testament eventually).

If Phreeque is correct then it seems reasonable to infer that the Bereans should have simply thanked Paul for opening up the scriptures to them and then sent him on his way, insisting that the scriptures will continue to be the “ultimate arbiter of truth” - and that they need not continue to defer to his authority or the authority of the other apostles, but that is not what we see at all. Acts 15 is a perfect example. Apostolic authority trumped Jewish scriptural authority.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

All the Good News concerning Jesus that St. Paul imparted to the Bereans and others on his missionary journeys was oral. The Bible did not exist – and wouldn’t until the end of the fourth century. The Bereans searched the messianic prophecies of the Greek Septuagint (Old Testament) Scriptures – which Martin Luther rejected and most Protestants also reject. Yet Protestants cite the Bereans to “prove” their Illogical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not understanding that they reject the very Scriptures that St. Paul and the Bereans relied upon. The Apostles used the Septuagint to evangelize the entire then-known world.

 

[Nicea325]

Your thoughts regarding the following:

Protestants, like certain family members of mine, as well as some here at CAF, often cite Acts 17 to support the practice of sola scriptura, but I don’t understand why. We see the Bereans searching the Torah just as the Thessalonians did, but unlike the Thessalonians (true sola scriptura proponents) - the Bereans were willing to accept the word of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be scripture, that is, the Law, Psalms and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel as opposed to tradition, it is clear that the Bereans were willing to accept new oral revelation that was not contained in what they believed to be sacred scripture, something the Thessalonians were not willing to do, making them authentic sola scriptura proponents.

The Bereans embraced both oral teachings and the tradition of the apostles, as equal to what they identified as sacred scripture, (the Law, Psalms and the Prophets) - in addition to, and as an extension of, the Torah, again, something the Thessalonians outright rejected because they couldn’t find it in the scriptures, and their decision was not unjustified if you view things from their scriptural perspective. After all, how could their long awaited Messiah, coming from God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? No doubt they thought:

What kind of king and Messiah would that be Paul?

The Thessalonians, unlike the Bereans, viewed Paul’s new teachings, be it oral or in written form, as foreign and contradictory to their scriptures, which is why the following happened:

“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, [the law, psalm and the prophets[/COLOR]] - explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.”

Indeed have been told the same argument by SS advocates. Unfortunately it is not true and it is nothing but a classic case of “reading into” more than what the text truly says. More important, if the Bereans were Bible-Only folks I find it very odd that not a single emphasis is ever mentioned about them as Bible-Only folks throughout history. Case in point, the Sadducees who were well known to only follow the Pentateuch and nothing else. SS is bogus and will always be bogus.

Christianity is not about a collection of writings (Bible) but about a person: Jesus Christ. Christianity is not a religion of the book,but of a person: Christ. We are not Jews or Muslims.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Word repeatedly exhorts us to examine what is set before us as truth, the most compelling example being where Paul in Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Does this verse not bowl you over?

St. Paul’s preaching is nowhere written down. All of Paul’s letters were written in response to problems that developed in the communities he had founded and instructed orally; then he moved on to found others on his missionary journeys. When St. Paul learned of these problems, he addressed them by writing. Protestants view the New Testament as a complete, comprehensive guide to Christianity. That was Martin Luther’s fallacy.

Even if we…"! He means apostles, clerics, religious leaders. Implication? You the individual believer need to test everything you hear from a pulpit or read in a pamphlet or book. (1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1 Jn. 4:1: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God”) But what do you use as the litmus test? What is the foolproof safeguard of your soul? The Scriptures, plain and simple.

The Scriptures don’t tell us which writings are Scripture. The Catholic Church does. Christianity was not based on words on a page but on the teaching of the Apostles through Christ’s Church – the Catholic Church. The measure of Christian truth is the Church, the “household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy .3:15.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Nicea325]

St. Paul’s preaching is nowhere written down. All of Paul’s letters were written in response to problems that developed in the communities he had founded and instructed orally; then he moved on to found others on his missionary journeys. When St. Paul learned of these problems, he addressed them by writing. Protestants view the New Testament as a complete, comprehensive guide to Christianity. That was Martin Luther’s fallacy.

The Scriptures don’t tell us which writings are Scripture. The Catholic Church does. Christianity was not based on words on a page but on the teaching of the Apostles through Christ’s Church – the Catholic Church. The measure of Christian truth is the Church, the “household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy .3:15.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Jim,

I have always wondered by SS believers flat out ignore or pervert this passage:

“household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy .3:15.

It does not read:

“household of God, the Bible of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy .3:15.

 

[joe370]

Jim Dandy;8506933]All the Good News concerning Jesus that St. Paul imparted to the Bereans and others on his missionary journeys was oral.

Difficult to argue against that logic, which makes it difficult to claim that the Bereans were strictly Sola scriptura proponents.