The Bereans

[sunlover1]

And when we examine the situation in Thessalonica, we see that the Thessalonians were arguing with Paul, both of them using the Old Testament. The only difference between the Bereans and the Thessalonians is that the Bereans were actually receptive to what Paul had to say. Or, maybe they just had a different interpretation of Scripture...

Hi DarkLite.
You're right .. Paul was reasoning with them ..explaining and
proving to them from Scripture that Jesus was the Christ...
(Many WERE receptive though to what He taught them...
but some of the jews were jealous...and went to the authorities
claiming that Paul and Silas were causing unrest (by claiming
another King (Jesus ) against Rome).

Here..check the Scripture to see if what I say is truth:

Sorry it's so long:

2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath
days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

3explaining and proving that the Christ[a] had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,[b]" he said.

4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

5But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad
characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city.


They rushed to Jason's house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd.[c]
6But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials,
shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,
7and Jason has welcomed them into his house.
They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."

 

[sunlover1]

You're making progress. Because like I said on the last thread, if the Bereans were sola-scriptura, there's no question they'd still be Jews.[ /quote]
Actually it was with Scripture that Paul reasoned with them to get them
to understand about Jesus.. many believed Him and converted.
2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ[a] had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,[b]" he said. 4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

... and Scripture records he gave his authority to the apostles, not Scripture.

Scripture is God's Words and so obviously the MEN (apostles) would submit
to GOD's Word (Scripture)
A given.

just as we could have plenty of conflict on GT if there were only Protestants here.

Fo sho!, or only Roman Catholics.
It's really more of a matter of whether you're skillful in the handling
of the Word or not.. Not which denomination you belong to

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Wasn't the EO RC split over interpretation?
(was it interpretation of Scripture or of ECF?)

The schism was primarily about Ecclesiology -- whether the bishop of Rome was simply first among equals or had true authority over other Patriarchs. Theological issues, such as Trinitarian procession, were secondary -- modern anti-Catholic Orthodox pundits make more out of this than was historically true. The split was not clean and there was a lot of back and forth with some churches in an area being loyal to Rome and some who were not and allegiance would go back and forth. Today, for every regional Orthodox Church, there is a smaller Church loyal to Rome. The schism has always been rather fuzzy and not definitive.

There have been good talks between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and with the Assyrian Church of the East. General sentiment in Orthodox countries tends to be rather anti-Roman but there has been much progress between Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and various Patriarchs. The effort of us conservatives on both sides needs to be to address the real issues and not just fluffy feel-good photo-ops. As a Traditionalist Catholic, I do feel some kinship with the Old Calendarists. We are anti-ecumenists in the sense that we oppose false ecumenism but we should all heartily support true ecumenism.

And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

Division among Christians is a scandal to the world. We all have different Rites and this is good; diversity in practice is very good but diversity in belief is unacceptable and souls are lost because of heresies. That is why we must seek to bring all to the orthodox Christian faith. This must be the sole purpose of any ecumenical dialogue, whether it's a meeting between Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I or here on CF.

 

[sunlover1]

The schism has always been rather fuzzy and not definitive.

I see.. I will take your word for it..

We are anti-ecumenists in the sense that we oppose false ecumenism but we should all heartily support true ecumenism.

Yeah well we should all just let Jesus have his way with us.
Then we'd all have that same Spirit and the same fruit thereof.
We'd all have the mind of Christ and all the thoughts thereof.
(IMO)

Division among Christians is a scandal to the world.

And worse,... a slap in the face of Jesus...
More like a defiant fist held up in pride...

We all have different Rites and this is good; diversity in practice is very good

Why would that be a good thing?

 

[simonthezealot]

For example, if we talk of the death, resurrection and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Protestants are skeptical since it is not written down in Acts but that hardly makes it less true or less reasonable.

Right! no less true or less reasonable than say when you tell us about the purple and metallic gold pigs that fly through the cotton candy forest growing under water in the town of atlatis.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The division between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox which is the origin of all of these types of threads on GT and hundreds of years of arguments since the Protestant rebellion began is over where authority is located in the Church.

In Catholic thought, authority lies in the bishops who are in communion with the bishop of Rome -- "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28), "But I [Jesus] have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Lk 22:32).

Then along came Protestantism, out of Humanism and the "Enlightenment". In Protestantism, it is not the bishops but the individuals who are the final authority. They say they only hold the Bible as authoritative but every one of them interprets the Bible in a different way.

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented. And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.

It's not about the Bible's authority, we can all agree on that -- indeed, it was the Catholic Church who compiled the New Testament out of the letters written between its members and declared them to be infallible and inspired by God. Rather's it's about who has authority to correctly interpret the Scriptures and teach -- do the bishops who "rule the Church of God" have the authority or should everyone "lean on their own understanding" (Pr 3:5) and do what is "right in their own eyes" (Jud 17:6)?

The Protestant attack differed from the rest especially in this characteristic, that its attack did not consist in the promulgation of a new doctrine or of a new authority, that it made no concerted attempt at creating a counter - Church, but had for its principle the denial of unity. It was an effort to promote that state of mind in which a Church in the old sense of the word - that is, an infallible, united, teaching body, a Person speaking with Divine authority - should be denied; not the doctrines it might happen to advance, but its very claim to advance them with unique authority. Thus, one Protestant may affirm, as do the English Puseyites, the truth of all the doctrines underlying the Mass - the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, the sacerdotal power of consecration, etc. - another Protestant may affirm that all such conceptions are false, yet both these Protestants are Protestant because they communicate in the fundamental conception that the Church is not a visible, definable and united personality, that there is no central infallible authority, and that therefore each is free to choose his own set of doctrines.

Such affirmations of disunion, such denial of the claim to unity as being part of the Divine order, produced indeed a common Protestant temperament through certain historical associations; but there is no one doctrine nor set of doctrines which can be affirmed as being the kernel of Protestantism. Its essential remains the rejection of unity through authority.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

Wasn't the EO RC split over interpretation?
(was it interpretation of Scripture or of ECF?)
​

P2C: The schism was primarily about Ecclesiology ...

SUp---don't forget the question of whether to use leavened or unleavened bread was in the top 3 reasons for the schism. Had a thread on that somewhere on GT.

 

[Standing Up]

The division between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox which is the origin of all of these types of threads on GT and hundreds of years of arguments since the Protestant rebellion began is over where authority is located in the Church.

No, it's from those who love the preeminence and those who say I am of Cephas, Apollos, etc.

In Catholic thought, authority lies in the bishops who are in communion with the bishop of Rome -- "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28), "But I [Jesus] have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Lk 22:32).

Bishops (overseers), plural. Peter--to the elders (plural). Never a sense of a earthly head in place of Christ, but elders (plural).

Then along came Protestantism, out of Humanism and the "Enlightenment". In Protestantism, it is not the bishops but the individuals who are the final authority. They say they only hold the Bible as authoritative but every one of them interprets the Bible in a different way.

Like RC, some keep to one thing, others to another. But I dare say we all agree that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, eh?

It's not about the Bible's authority, we can all agree on that -- indeed, it was the Catholic Church who compiled the New Testament out of the letters written between its members and declared them to be infallible and inspired by God.

Kinda, but not really right, but to confirm in any event that you don't mean Roman Catholic. RC didn't compile the NT.

Rather's it's about who has authority to correctly interpret the Scriptures and teach -- do the bishops who "rule the Church of God" have the authority or should everyone "lean on their own understanding" (Pr 3:5) and do what is "right in their own eyes" (Jud 17:6)?

Here's a hint.

2 Tim. 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[GigageiTsula]

2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[Mr Dave]

Then along came Protestantism, out of Humanism and the "Enlightenment". In Protestantism, it is not the bishops but the individuals who are the final authority. They say they only hold the Bible as authoritative but every one of them interprets the Bible in a different way.

The Protestant Reformation predated the Enlightenment and Humanism by at least two hundred years. It is not the individuals who are the final authority. In traditional Protestantism (pre-enlightenment) the structures of the denominations held the authoritative interpretation of scripture (the highest authority on matters regarding salvation) which is passed down to the lay-man. This is how may ask what Anglicanism teaches, or what Lutheranism teaches or what Methodism teaches etc... Each of these has much in common with Roman Catholicism but diverges over issues where there has for whatever reason seemed enough reason to say that Rome is in error and a different interpretation (that is agreed by many) may be closer to the truth. Each individual protestant does not interpret the Bible in a different way.

Thinking that Protestantism is a post-enlightenment movement is an error on your part, and seems to have influenced your view of Protestantism.

 

[shinbits]

So it's no longer Scripture alone? You're making progress.

I was never with "scripture alone". It just seems like people automatically put you on side or the other.

The "ultimate authority" is Christ, and Scripture records he gave his authority to the apostles, not Scripture. As St. John says of the apostles, "We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

If the Bible commends people for even checking the apostles' words against Scripture to make sure what they said was true, doesn't make the Bible a higher authority than the apostles? Think about it.

 

[shinbits]

The Bereans were checking Paul and Silas's story about Jesus against the Old Testament prophecies.

This is good. But this doesn't mean that everything which Paul and the others taught was written down in the Gospels and letters which make up the New Testament. For example, if we talk of the death, resurrection and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Protestants are skeptical since it is not written down in Acts but that hardly makes it less true or less reasonable.

Yes, I think you're right. But then there's the issues of Mary being born sinless, when the Bible explicitely says "all" descendents of Adam sinned, which would include Mary. Once you start heeding supernatural acounts of Biblical figures that are non-biblical, it opens the door for people to believe even contradictions like this.

The teachings of Christ and the apostles (Divino-Apostolic Tradition) which were written down do not conflict with those things which were not written down. So where is the issue?

One issue, is with the above example, among others.

Feel free to read the Scriptures and check them against Catholic teaching, you will find no contradictions and much support.

See above.

You may of course find contradictions between Catholic interpretations of a particular passage and a given denomination's interpretations of a particular passage, just as we could have plenty of conflict on GT if there were only Protestants here.

The problem with a lot of Protestants remain the same as the problem we have with Catholics; many just ignore what the Bible plainly says. For example, there are gay Christians. Is the problem with interpreting Scripture, or adhering to what the Bible plainly says? Obviously, it's the latter. Everyone can be on the same page concerning the Bible, if only they would be reasonable.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

And worse,... a slap in the face of Jesus...
More like a defiant fist held up in pride...

ie. the Protestant Rebellion.

We all have different Rites and this is good; diversity in practice is very good

Why would that be a good thing?

Because every culture has their own way of doing things, it's part of the virtue of piety. I'm happy to be part of the (Traditional) Roman Rite, but it was originally intended only for Rome. Even the city of Milan, less than 600km from Rome still maintains it's own Rite -- the Ambrosian Rite. It used to be that various Rites and uses (variations) flourished throughout Europe, just as they have in the East. The Protestant Rebellion, however, required a more uniform practice in order to clamp down on heretical worship. So the Roman Rite was extended and only Rites which could show a history of more than 200 years were confirmed to be Catholic Rites.

Over the years, other Rites have fallen out of use in favor of the Roman Rite. The Mozarabic Rite is celebrated now primarily only in the cathredral of Toledo, Spain, but it was popular throughout the region (when the Muslims were in Spain/Portugal, there was much influence on the Christians in the region, I have a Mozarabic CD by "Ensemble Organum" it is very beautiful and quite distinct from the usual Gregorian chant). The Carmelites and Dominicans have adopted the Roman Rite (one new Carmelite monastery uses the Carmelite Rite but they are subject to the bishop alone and not the actual Carmelite Order), though the Carthusian Rite still remains. These Rites are still licit but their celebration is rare.

Throughout the East, we see a number of different Rites and the same used to be true of Europe. This shows the great diversity and universality of the Church. St. Thomas says that we talk about God in a complex way because we are trying to explain something that is infinitely beyond our comprehension. In the same way, the Heavenly Liturgy is a single liturgy but because it is so far beyond what we can comprehend and celebrate here on earth, it is expressed in a wide variety of ways.

Unity in diversity!

 

[narnia59]

I was never with "scripture alone". It just seems like people automatically put you on side or the other.


If the Bible commends people for even checking the apostles' words against Scripture to make sure what they said was true, doesn't make the Bible a higher authority than the apostles? Think about it.

Jesus is the highest authority, and he gave His authority to the apostles. The authority to forgive sins. The authority to cure disease. The authority to cast out demons. The authority to interpret Scripture. Can Scripture do any of these things?

The Bereans were commended for receiving the word with eagerness. You interpret their checking with Scripture to verify that means they're challenging Paul's authority. Could just as well be checking Scripture because they are in such awe and wonder of what they've heard, they want to read for themselves. Really? Let's look. Wow!

And what about the 90% of the people who couldn't read? What were they supposed to do to 'verify' what the apostles said? You believe God created Scripture as the ultimate authority when for the first 1700 years or so of Christianity the great majority of people wouldn't even be able to read it? Now that makes sense.

Do a word search on "authority" in the NT. It talks about the authority of Christ. It talks about secular authority. It talks about the authority of the apostles.

Scripture isn't even mentioned. It never refers to itself as having authority. It refers to itself as being useful for teaching. Yet you want to say it is the "ultimate" authority, based on the fact that Scripture commends people for being excited to study the written word. It doesn't even refer to itself as having authority at all. Maybe you should listen to it.

 

[narnia59]

2 Timothy 3:16.

Which says:

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.

First of all, Paul is not writing this for the general church, who he would refer to as 'the saints', or 'brothers'. He is not writing this to a congregation. He is writing this to the young man he is mentoring to become his successor. It is a direct letter from Paul to Timothy. So that the "man of God" may be equipped. He only uses "man of God" twice in Scripture -- when writing to Timothy.

And what does he tell Timothy? If you are going to be a "man of God", if you are going to be given the teaching authority I am handing on to you, you need to know Scripture. If you're going to be thoroughly equipped, you need to understand Scripture. He nowhere says it's the ONLY thing he needs to be thoroughly equipped.

So how does a plain reading of Scripture go from Paul telling Timothy that if he's going to have the authority to teach and preach he needs to know Scripture to Scripture is the only authority any Christian will ever need??

 

[narnia59]

I was never with "scripture alone". It just seems like people automatically put you on side or the other.

So what do you think is needed along with Scripture?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Romans 3:
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

SUp---don't forget the question of whether to use leavened or unleavened bread was in the top 3 reasons for the schism. Had a thread on that somewhere on GT.

Some Orthodox now maintain that the bread must be leavened, in contrast to the Catholic Church which teaches that the bread may be either leavened or unleavened (the Latin Rite uses unleavened bread). I understand that the West originally used leavened bread as well.

In the creation of Western Orthodoxy, they compromised with the Eastern Orthodox and use leavened bread which has been flattened to resemble unleavened bread. Source

Two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above (Article 3). It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either.

But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory [Pope St. Gregory the Great, +604] says: "The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting the rite of his Church.

Some Orthodox very much like to question Western practices, they will even (depending on the jurisdiction) re-baptize converts who were baptized in Catholic or Protestant churches. De-Latinization is all well and good but the Western traditions are just as noble as the Eastern. Good fences make good neighbors but it also requires the respect of the man on the other side of the fence. The use of leavened or unleavened bread has different symbolism but both should be accepted as perfectly valid forms of bread suitable for the Eucharist.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

those who say I am of Cephas, Apollos, etc.

Exactly. How do Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans and others feel about naming themselves after men?

...for Christians come to be called Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion. For let them not excuse themselves; nor retort their disgrace on those who are not as they, calling Christians after the names of their teachers, that they themselves may appear to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them make a jest of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful appellation; rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces, or let them recoil from their own irreligion. For never at any time did Christian people take their title from the Bishops among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers, and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet not from them have we our title, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have become.

Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after Christ, Marcion broached a heresy a long time since and was cast out; and those who continued with him who ejected him remained Christians; but those who followed Marcion were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichæus, and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and some are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and other, Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his party no longer Christians, but Meletians, and so in consequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast out Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those who went out with Arius, left the Saviour's Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to them they were hence-forward denominated Arians. Behold then, after Alexander's death too, those who communicate with his successor Athanasius, and those with whom the said Athanasius communicates, are instances of the same rule; none of them bear his name, nor is he named from them, but all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. For though we have a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same. But those who follow the heretics, though they have innumerable successors in their heresy, yet anyhow bear the name of him who devised it.

 

[shinbits]

Jesus is the highest authority, and he gave His authority to the apostles. The authority to forgive sins. The authority to cure disease. The authority to cast out demons. The authority to interpret Scripture. Can Scripture do any of these things?

I didn't say Scripture is the ultimate power. But when it comes to whether or not to accept doctrine, Scripture is the ultimate authority.

The Bereans were commended for receiving the word with eagerness. You interpret their checking with Scripture to verify that means they're challenging Paul's authority. Could just as well be checking Scripture because they are in such awe and wonder of what they've heard, they want to read for themselves. Really? Let's look. Wow!

The Bible CLEARLY says they checked the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.

So...you're wrong.

And what about the 90% of the people who couldn't read? What were they supposed to do to 'verify' what the apostles said? You believe God created Scripture as the ultimate authority when for the first 1700 years or so of Christianity the great majority of people wouldn't even be able to read it? Now that makes sense.

The Bereans, who were able to read and verify Scripture, were considered more noble than those who could read and verify Scripture, yet didn't. So it makes perfect sense.

Try again.

Do a word search on "authority" in the NT. It talks about the authority of Christ. It talks about secular authority. It talks about the authority of the apostles.

You're playing cheep word games, like so many Catholics do. By "ultimate authority", obviously I mean on whether or not to accept a particular doctrine. That's all. Obviously, I don't mean an inanimate book has more authority than a pastor to marry.

Please stop. This is getting sad.

Scripture isn't even mentioned. It never refers to itself as having authority. It refers to itself as being useful for teaching. Yet you want to say it is the "ultimate" authority, based on the fact that Scripture commends people for being excited to study the written word. It doesn't even refer to itself as having authority at all. Maybe you should listen to it.

Scripture also doesn't mention Mary as being sinless, an ever-virgin, or having been assumed into heaven. Maybe you should listen to it.