The Bereans

[Mr Dave]

For "Sola Scriptura" types:

* Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth?

* Where does the Bible say what books make up the Bible?

That's not what Sola Scriptura is.
It is not 'use only the Bible for Christian Truth,' but Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If the Berans knew that the Torah was a revelation from God it would make sense that they tested new revelations (those of St Paul for example) against them to see if what he spoke and wrote was inline with something that was already vouchsafed as being divinely inspired. I don't think we can assume from this that the Torah is more authoritative then the writings and other Traditions of St Paul though.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That's not what Sola Scriptura is.
It is not 'use only the Bible for Christian Truth,' but Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Okay, where does it say that?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

What of the Benedictines, Domincans, Franciscans, Augustinians?

But they are all Catholics, their religion is not based on the founder of their order. A Franciscan follows the rule of St. Francis in regards to how to live his life, but he is a Catholic just like someone of a different order or of no order. Likewise, it is perfectly fine to say "I am a Thomist" -- I accept the philosophy and methods of St. Thomas Aquinas. But we still all believe the same things.

 

[sunlover1]

Okay, where does it say that?

3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Mr Dave]

But they are all Catholics, their religion is not based on the founder of their order. A Franciscan follows the rule of St. Francis in regards to how to live his life, but he is a Catholic just like someone of a different order or of no order. Likewise, it is perfectly fine to say "I am a Thomist" -- I accept the philosophy and methods of St. Thomas Aquinas. But we still all believe the same things.

And we are all Christians, our religion is based on its founder, Christ. They, like the Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans follow the emphases that come from the person of that name. They may be Roman Catholics, but they are distinctively [insert name of order] which is named after a man (the issue you had in the first post of this nature). None of these different emphases prevent the follower of that grouping from being a full Christian. As has been discussed in other threads, Catholic Faith (as described in the Athanasian Creed) is belief in the Holy Trinity.

 

[sunlover1]

And we are all Christians, our religion is based on its founder, Christ. They, like the Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans follow the emphases that come from the person of that name. They may be Roman Catholics, but they are distinctively [insert name of order] which is named after a man

Peter perhaps?

As has been discussed in other threads, Catholic Faith (as described in the Athanasian Creed) is belief in the Holy Trinity

I am catholic like you Mr. Dave

 

[shinbits]

And Scripture says this where?




What is sad is what you profess to believe is found nowhere in Scripture. The authority to teach was given to the apostles. They said to hold fast to what they taught whether it was written down or not. There is no Scripture to support your belief.

Where does Scripture say Mary was a sinless ever-virgin that got assumed into heaven?

Unless you can show where the Bible says this, you are being a complete hypocrite, since Catholics believe SOOOOO many things that aren't Biblical.

I have. I've studied all those things, and found the Catholic position, as taught and believed by Catholics, to be perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Catholics hold Mary to be sinless, while the Bible says ALL descendents of Adam sinned. That's not "compatible" now is it? Nope, it's an outright contradiction to the Bible.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Mr Dave That's not what Sola Scriptura is.
It is not 'use only the Bible for Christian Truth,' but Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Okay, where does it say that?

Is it really that important to your Denomination for it to say that

 

[shinbits]

So Jesus was born with the corruption of Original Sin? Or is He an exception? (The SDA teach that He was corrupted by Original Sin and could have sinned actually, but didn't). If Christ's human nature was not corrupted by Original Sin, is it unreasonable to say that God protected Our Lord's mother from corruption as well?

In my post, I clearly said descendents of Adam were all born in sin. Jesus wasn't a descendent of Adam, now was he? Jesus had no father (unlike Mary), and the fathers, according to the Bible, determine lineage. That's why Jesus was born without sin.

Thus, Mary was born with sin, since all descendents of Adam sinned.

 

[sunlover1]

Where does Scripture say Mary was a sinless ever-virgin that got assumed into heaven?

Nowhere.
And as much as I can understand and sympathise with your
reasoning. I SO hate it when people answer my questions
with such a question.
If I say Bible is authority and they come back with some
"well where did the Bible come from then??" sort of turnabout.
(Just saying.. )

Catholics hold Mary to be sinless, while the Bible says ALL descendents of Adam sinned. That's not "compatible" now is it? Nope, it's an outright contradiction to the Bible.

In my post, I clearly said descendents of Adam were all born in sin. Jesus wasn't a descendent of Adam, now was he? Jesus had no father (unlike Mary), and the fathers, according to the Bible, determine lineage. That's why Jesus was born without sin.

Thus, Mary was born with sin, since all descendents of Adam sinned.

Can't see how it could work any differently unless Mary wasn't humanoid

 

[MrPolo]

What is interesting about the Berean example is that they were considered more noble than some of the Thessalonians. And what is interesting about the Thessalonians is that Paul went to them and also preached from the Scriptures---and the Thessalonians also consulted the Scriptures to test Paul's teaching---but some of the Thessalonians decided Paul's interpretation was wrong! (Acts 17:1–9). The Bereans were willing to accept the new revelation of Christ. The Thessalonians would not accept anything new outside that which constituted Scripture for them!

So both the Bereans and Thessalonians went to Scripture. That in and of itself is not what made the Bereans more noble. What made them more noble is accepting what Paul said orally as the word. Paul himself said the oral teaching of he and the apostles constituted the "word of God." (1 Thes 2:13).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What is interesting about the Berean example is that they were considered more noble than some of the Thessalonians. And what is interesting about the Thessalonians is that Paul went to them and also preached from the Scriptures---and the Thessalonians also consulted the Scriptures to test Paul's teaching---but some of the Thessalonians decided Paul's interpretation was wrong! (Acts 17:1–9). The Bereans were willing to accept the new revelation of Christ. The Thessalonians would not accept anything new outside that which constituted Scripture for them!

So both the Bereans and Thessalonians went to Scripture. That in and of itself is not what made the Bereans more noble. What made them more noble is accepting what Paul said orally as the word. Paul himself said the oral teaching of he and the apostles constituted the "word of God." (1 Thes 2:13).

I have no arguement with that

Reve 2:18: And to the messenger of the in Thyatira Assemby, write!
Now-this is saying the Son of the God, the one having the eyes of Him as flame of fire, and the feet of Him like white-bronze.

Reve 19:12 The eyes of Him as flame of fire and on the head of Him, diadems, many, having Name having been written which no-one has perceived if no he.
13 And having been about cast/clothed cloak, having been dipped to blood and has been called the Name of Him, the Word of the God.

 

[shinbits]

What is interesting about the Berean example is that they were considered more noble than some of the Thessalonians. And what is interesting about the Thessalonians is that Paul went to them and also preached from the Scriptures---and the Thessalonians also consulted the Scriptures to test Paul's teaching---but some of the Thessalonians decided Paul's interpretation was wrong! (Acts 17:1–9). The Bereans were willing to accept the new revelation of Christ. The Thessalonians would not accept anything new outside that which constituted Scripture for them!

Your link doesn't say what you claim it does. Nothing in that link says that the Thessalonians "decided Paul's interpretation was wrong". It merely says that some Jews were Jealous. That's it. Nothing about disagreeing.

You've misrepresented what the Bible says here.

So both the Bereans and Thessalonians went to Scripture. That in and of itself is not what made the Bereans more noble. What made them more noble is accepting what Paul said orally as the word. Paul himself said the oral teaching of he and the apostles constituted the "word of God." (1 Thes 2:13).

You JUST said that Paul used SCRIPTURE to preach to the Thessalonians; now you conclude from what you just said, that "oral teaching" constitutes the word of God? You've just contradicted yourself.

From your own example, it's clear that the "word of God" the apostles preached, were things that Scripture spoke of.

 

[sunlover1]

What is interesting about the Berean example is that they were considered more noble than some of the Thessalonians. And what is interesting about the Thessalonians is that Paul went to them and also preached from the Scriptures---and the Thessalonians also consulted the Scriptures to test Paul's teaching---but some of the Thessalonians decided Paul's interpretation was wrong! (Acts 17:1–9). The Bereans were willing to accept the new revelation of Christ. The Thessalonians would not accept anything new outside that which constituted Scripture for them!

So both the Bereans and Thessalonians went to Scripture. That in and of itself is not what made the Bereans more noble. What made them more noble is accepting what Paul said orally as the word. Paul himself said the oral teaching of he and the apostles constituted the "word of God." (1 Thes 2:13).

Hi Mr Polo.
I guess maybe you missed my earlier post in reference to the Thesselonians
and Paul teaching them:

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."

A real treasure Chest!

 

[Standing Up]

That's not what Sola Scriptura is.
It is not 'use only the Bible for Christian Truth,' but Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Right. I keep neglecting that fine distinctive definition.

When God builds the house, the temple, the church of the Living God, He uses a plumb line, which would be His word, not man's traditions or devilish doctrines.

Amos 7:8 And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more:

Psalm 127:1 [[A Song of degrees for Solomon.]] Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain.

Zach 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Where does this say scripture is the ultimate authority?

Is there anything more authoritative than the word of God?

 

[Mr Dave]

Right. I keep neglecting that fine distinctive definition.

Are you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell.
It's an important distinction;
One says that only the Bible should be used for understanding anything to do with Christianity, and so it would be wrong to engage with Christian traditions, or science, or history...
The other (the actual intended definition) is that Scripture alone is all that is necessary for understanding salvation.

Sola Scriptura translates as Scripture alone, not as 'only the Bible shall be used'.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Sorry for snapping.

Not a problem PilgrimToChrist we can all in our zeal get a bit snappy sometimes and I am certainly no exception to that

I was trying to get you to give some explanation and interpretation of the many verses that you posted.

I felt they were self evident by the way I had posted them, sometimes I can post them better and other times I hit and miss in being as clear according to them as I desire to be (depends).

Just sharing scripture, which ones would you question?

As do I, which is why I should probably be getting to bed and say Compline before I fall asleep at the computer... Debating religion is certainly not as important as actually practicing it, arguing shouldn't cut into my prayer time.

I'm not into wrangling with His words or desious of the constant back and forth of nothingness that can occur on forums.

I would hope and pray that no one here intends to cast doubt on God and His words! We may argue but we are all still Christians and hold Sacred Scripture in the highest regard.

I too would hope so too, but sometimes it very much appears so. Anothers confidence in the Lord alone is often treated with contempt. Some very much appear to hate the fact others love abiding in His words alone. Though, our Lord says the one who does not love Him will not keep his sayings. Right there is one of Jesus's definition of them which loveth Him not. And these were not His words but the Fathers. So, I keep His words in mind when I observe conversations that go much like that. You know the ones, those in whom you can perceive this "power struggle" which tries to get you under themselves "preaching other men" to you and not much in it professing Jesus Christ. Behaving itself as lords over anothers faith (over the which) the apostles themselves said they were no such thing.

Its highly suspect, well I know my conscience throws up an enormous amount of red flags toward it. That which speaking of nothing other then its own control, and of that which commends itself to you always but theres not much of anything in it which commends itself to your conscience.

When we discuss and debate the issue of Scripture between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants what we are really asking is not whether or not the Scriptures are inspired by God and infallible (leave that to The Jesus Seminar and other modernist assaults on the faith). What we really are asking is this:

What is the Bible to you?

To the Protestant, the Bible is a collection of writings upon which he bases his faith -- it tells him about Jesus and how to live rightly and worship God.

To the Catholic or Orthodox, the Bible is a collection of works written by the Church, it is part of the sacred teachings of the Church which has been written down. The sacred teachings of the Church as a whole tell him about Jesus and how to live rightly and worship God.

When Catholics see Protestants saying that we must build a church which conforms to what the New Testament says, it sounds to us quite strange, like saying that we should build a community named "Israel" by conforming to what the Old Testament says. Certainly, Israel existed before the Old Testament was written down and there were teachings and practices of the Israelites which did not get written down. The Old Testament is a chronicle of the Israelites, it shows us history and the words of the prophets.

In the same way, the New Israel -- the Church -- existed before the New Testament was written down and there are teachings and practices of the Church which did not get written down. The New Testament is a chronicle of the Church, it shows us the life of Jesus (Gospels), history (Acts), letters to bishops and other individuals in different cities (Epistles) and prophecy (Revelation).

The New Testament didn't just fall from Heaven intact like Mohammed or Joseph Smith who claimed to receive scriptures from an angel. Most of the New Testament is composed of letters between different cities and people in the Church (mostly by St. Paul), so clearly there was a Church that was thriving even while the New Testament was being written.

And I'm reasonably sure that St. Paul had no idea that what he was writing was going to be put on the same level as the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament), he was just writing letters trying to educate the Church in different cities about the faith. The faith already existed, he wasn't creating it out of thin air or even by being inspired by God. He was just preaching the faith that already was being taught throughout the Church, in order to strengthen the believers in different cities. Most of what was written in the New Testament was not new to the Church (Revelation being an exception), but it was explained in a way that was inspired by God the Holy Ghost (though St. Paul and the other authors had their own style).

So if the Church existed before the New Testament was compiled and even before and while it was being written, how can the Church be a construction based on the New Testament? Not anymore than Israel was a construction based on the Old Testament.

That's the underlying problem of "Sola Scriptura", it has nothing to do with any sort of assault on the integrity and importance of Scripture. The real question is: What is the Bible, specifically the New Testament? Is it writings upon which the Church is founded or is it writings of the Church? Is the Church based on the Bible or is the Bible based on the Church? If it the former, Sola Scriptura is a necessity; if it the latter, it is an absurdity.

I dont know about all the rest of what you are going on about up there, just see The church is built on three, the apostles (plural) and the prophets (plural) And Jesus of Whom both bear witness.

The letters of His apostles to the churches which say of scripture

2Titus 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof...

And the OT scriptues say...

Prov 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: (((( behold )))), I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Which speaks in same same accord as with what Jesus does

Luke 24:45 Then ((( opened he ))) their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,


Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

As they are they which testify of Him Jesus saying...

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (Duet 18:15)

The things concerning Him are written of them

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Account of the apostles preaching out of the law and the prophets

Acts 28:23 Paul....persuading them concerning Jesus,both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

In Philips example reading from Isaiah...

Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.


Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

2Titus 3:15 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.

In the epistles it shows them preaching from out of the scriptures of old.

I pretty much like to post script you might find me a bit boring, I'm not reaaly into comparing these folks or those folks or what these say or they say or into much talk, you might find me boring that way, having tediously long back and forth conversations is not what Im inclined to, just posting to the OP, love the topic but not much into bickering back and forth though Just enjoy digging into the scriptures and taking pleasure in the Lord

 

[Rick Otto]

I find the very idea that there would be a body of important teachings NOT written down, to be unbelievable.