No, I’m saying that what made the Bereans more “noble-minded” was that they compared what was taught TO Scripture, which for the Church includes the NT as well, which both Paul & Peter referred to as Scripture.
You misunderstand the Bereans completely. It’s a common thing among Protestants.
The sola scripturists were the Thessalonians. Read on.
Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp
If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).
When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” **Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280). **
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).
+++
Those who followed the doctrine of
sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.
Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.
It’s because Scripture is the Word of God, & the Word of God doesn’t support that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. It would actually contradict Scripture, since God commanded husbands & wives to “be fruitful & multiply,” & since there was no direct command from God, or an angel, or anyone else to Mary to “remain” a virgin her whole life, & since there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that Mary "planned’ to remain a virgin her whole life (since taking “vows” of chastity among married couples was an extremely rare thing, even in Judaism, & when it is, it’s mentioned in Scripture) there is no reason - Scripturally - be believe that she did. Plus, Scripture supports that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus, so to believe otherwise, would contradict the Word of God. Just because this is a non-salvation issue, doesn’t permit us as Christians to teach something that is not supported by God’s Word - which believing Mary had other children does not. Thanks for asking. 