Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 prove sola scripture?

Doug Melven said:

I don't think that verse proves Sola Scriptura.
2 Timothy 3:16 does though.
God's Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.
That verse doesn't say other things are profitable, it says the Word of God is.

Other things can be profitable as well. But, they are not equal to God's Word.
Other things may have unforeseen side effects, like death. Proverbs 14:12
God's Word is the best way to go IMO.
Others may disagree, that is there right.

Click to expand...

I do disagree.

First, Paul is not writing this text to a community of believers. He is writing it to the young man who is succeeding him in his role as an apostle.

"Profitable" means "useful". Scripture is certainly useful for one who has been ordained and given charge of the Church for all the reasons listed -- doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. But "useful" is not the same as "sufficient" which is what sola Scriptura requires.

BobRyan said:

The 66 comes from those who believe the Hebrew Bible was written by Hebrews - not Catholics.

This particular point is very easy to get.

Click to expand...

Yet those books accepted by the Catholics are also accepted as part of the canon of Scripture by the Ethiopian Jews (also known as Beta Israel) who migrated to Ethiopia approximately 500 years before the time of Christ.

BobRyan said:

If the rule is used in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" but if you insert your wording into it -- then that text is saying that only the accepted scriptures as known at the writing of Acts 17:11 is the "Word of God" and only those texts are valid rules for testing faith, tradition and practice. Not the remainder of Acts not even the writings of the NT since the Bereans were surely not reading any NT texts while still non-Christian Jews.

Click to expand...

The Bereans were more noble because they "accepted the word with great joy". That word was the oral Gospel proclaimed by Paul. If you read back to Paul's encounter with the Thessalonians, the argument they were having with Paul over Scripture is the concept that the Messiah had to suffer and die. The Israelites had been conditioned by their leadership to ignore those verses in favor of the ones that foretold the coming of a majestic king, not a suffering servant. So yes, the Bereans had some Scripture searching to do to realize the meaning of those Old Testament verses about Christ were indeed there much to their surprise.

But the bottom line is this -- if the Bereans had been sola-Scriptura they would still be Jews. Because when Paul proclaimed to them that the person of Jesus Christ had been crucified and risen from the dead, they would have had to ask the all important sola-Scriptura question -- where is that in the Bible? And it since it would not have been, they would have had to reject the oral word of God as proclaimed by Paul, and remain Jewish.

narnia59 said:

The Bereans were more noble because they "accepted the word with great joy". That word was the oral Gospel proclaimed by Paul. If you read back to Paul's encounter with the Thessalonians, the argument they were having with Paul over Scripture is the concept that the Messiah had to suffer and die. The Israelites had been conditioned by their leadership to ignore those verses in favor of the ones that foretold the coming of a majestic king, not a suffering servant. So yes, the Bereans had some Scripture searching to do to realize the meaning of those Old Testament verses about Christ were indeed there much to their surprise.

But the bottom line is this -- if the Bereans had been sola-Scriptura they would still be Jews. Because when Paul proclaimed to them that the person of Jesus Christ had been crucified and risen from the dead, they would have had to ask the all important sola-Scriptura question -- where is that in the Bible? And it since it would not have been, they would have had to reject the oral word of God as proclaimed by Paul, and remain Jewish.

Click to expand...

The Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica because they did 2 things.
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.

Scripture, the revealed Word of God, is the best and highest rule for our lives. Everything must be judged by it.
If there are doctrines that are contrary to God's Word they must be denied.
If our actions run contrary to it, we must change.
There is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death.

Doug Melven said:

The Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica because they did 2 things.
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.

Scripture, the revealed Word of God, is the best and highest rule for our lives. Everything must be judged by it.
If there are doctrines that are contrary to God's Word they must be denied.
If our actions run contrary to it, we must change.
There is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death.

Click to expand...

The text is not clear whether the subsequent 'and' is part of what made them more noble or merely the next subsequent action. But it is clear that they were more noble because they received the word with great joy. And that 'word' was the oral proclamation of the Gospel by Paul, something not found in their Scriptures at all. Based upon your view, since Paul's proclamation that the person of Jesus Christ had died and rose from the dead could not be found in Scripture, they should have denied it, correct?

narnia59 said:

Based upon your view, since Paul's proclamation that the person of Jesus Christ had died and rose from the dead could not be found in Scripture, they should have denied it, correct?

Click to expand...

You do realize that the OT Scriptures proclaimed the gospel? Hebrews 4:2
Jesus showed the 2 disciples on the Emmaus road all of the Scriptures about Himself.

So there was definitely something in those Scriptures for the Bereans to check.
Paul would not have been using the current oral teachings with the Jews.
Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Doug Melven said:

You do realize that the OT Scriptures proclaimed the gospel? Hebrews 4:2
Jesus showed the 2 disciples on the Emmaus road all of the Scriptures about Himself.

So there was definitely something in those Scriptures for the Bereans to check.
Paul would not have been using the current oral teachings with the Jews.
Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Click to expand...

The first proclamation of the Gospel is found in Genesis 3:15. So yes, I recognize that the OT prophesizes of the things to come. Correctly understood, one can take from the OT that the Messiah was to suffer, die and rise from the dead. And as I said, based upon the discussions Paul had with the Thessalonians, what they were checking in Scripture was if that prophecy was indeed there, because they had been conditioned by their leadership to expect a Messiah who was a conquering king, not one who was a suffering servant.

The oral teaching that Paul brings to the Jews was that the historical person of Jesus Christ, who was born in Nazareth to the Virgin Mary had fulfilled those prophecies. That truth of faith is not found in the OT. Yes, it prophesizes that it will happen. It doesn't record the historical event that it did happen.

So for the Bereans to become Christian, they had to accept the oral testimony of the Church that the person of Jesus Christ had indeed died and rose from the dead. They had no Scripture to 'check' that fact. Which is why it's a very odd example to try to promote as evidence for sola-Scriptura. For if they had been sola-Scriptura, they would have asked Paul where in the Bible it showed that the person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled those prophecies, and when it was not to be found there, they should have rejected it. Rather, they received with great joy the word of God as spoken by the apostles (as did all of those at Pentecost). They accepted the oral testimony of the Church as Truth and became Christians.

jamesbond007 said:

You would have found the words in the Bible to prove sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

No - you have to find "scripture" in the Bible to support the teaching of "sola scriptura"

1 Cor 4:9
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"

jamesbond007 said:

Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

"Sanctify them in Thy TRUTH -- Thy WORD is Truth" John 17:17

2 Peter 1:20-21 " 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Notice how Jesus uses the term "Word of God" in this example?


Mark 7:6-13
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

============================

1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Thus... Isiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word they have no light" is sola scriptura affirmed long before the NT.

But the way you use "alone" you defeat your own doctrine by eliminating all possibility of finding that doctrine in scripture.

If Isaiah had said "what is written scripture at this point alone - is the Word of God and the rule of faith" -- then not even the rest of Isaiah would be "valid" nor the remainder of the OT nor all the NT.

If the rule is used in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" but if you insert your wording into it -- then that text is saying that only the accepted scriptures as known at the writing of Acts 17:11 is the "Word of God" and only those texts are valid rules for testing faith, tradition and practice. Not the remainder of Acts not even the writings of the NT since the Bereans were surely not reading any NT texts while still non-Christian Jews.

narnia59 said:

The Bereans were more noble because they "accepted the word with great joy". That word was the oral Gospel proclaimed by Paul.

Click to expand...

1. The Bereans were not even Christian at all.
2. Paul as a Christian Apostles was an absolute nobody to them
3. The oral teaching of their own majisterium flatly condemned Paul.
4. The only thing they had to go on - was the "sola scriptura test" and based on that alone they defied all the oral teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead.

narnia59 said:

If you read back to Paul's encounter with the Thessalonians, the argument they were having with Paul over Scripture is the concept that the Messiah had to suffer and die. The Israelites had been conditioned by their leadership to ignore those verses in favor of the ones that foretold the coming of a majestic king, not a suffering servant.

Click to expand...

True - they had to defy all the tradition and teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead and the only thing that they could base that on - was their sola scriptura test.

narnia59 said:

But the bottom line is this -- if the Bereans had been sola-Scriptura they would still be Jews.

Click to expand...

Not according to the text. It says that they "studied the scriptures to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were so"

If they had not used scripture - then all they would have to go on would be the oral teaching and tradition of their magisterium which demanded that they reject Paul.

Because when Paul proclaimed to them that the person of Jesus Christ had been crucified and risen from the dead, they would have had to ask the all important sola-Scriptura question -- where is that in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Which would lead them to Isaiah 53 as Christ reminds us.

Luke 24
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

...31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day

narnia59 said:

Yet those books accepted by the Catholics are also accepted as part of the canon of Scripture by the Ethiopian Jews (also known as Beta Israel) who migrated to Ethiopia approximately 500 years before the time of Christ.

Click to expand...

Josephus points out in the first century A.D. that the Orthodox Jews flatly rejected those texts and the proof (he said) was in the fact that they were excluded from the Temple collection of canonized OT text.

The Apocrypha was written after 500 B.C. -- not before.

So anyone that left Israel before 500 B.C. would not have been carrying the Apocrypha with them nor any tradition of the Jews in 500 B.C. that favored the Apocrypha

BobRyan said:

Josephus points out in the first century A.D. that the Orthodox Jews flatly rejected those texts and the proof (he said) was in the fact that they were excluded from the Temple collection of canonized OT text.

The Apocrypha was written after 500 B.C. -- not before.

So anyone that left Israel before 500 B.C. would not have been carrying the Apocrypha with them nor any tradition of the Jews in 500 B.C. that favored the Apocrypha

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Jews who flatly rejected those texts also rejected the Gospels as being Scripture. Were they working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in determining what was and was not inspired Scripture?

There are no dates on any of the texts we have; scholars approximate and are often proven wrong by later evidence. For example, one of Luther's reasons for rejecting them was because they weren't originally written in Hebrew, but the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls later shows that at least some of them were.

You can state that anyone who left Israel before 500 B.C. wouldn't have those texts, but that doesn't explain how the Ethiopian Jews would have then later obtained them and accept them into their canon of Scripture once separated from the Jews in Israel. That scenario is highly unlikely. These Jews by the way have been accepted by the state of Israel under the Law of Return.

narnia59 said:

The text is not clear whether the subsequent 'and' is part of what made them more noble or merely the next subsequent action. But it is clear that they were more noble because they received the word with great joy. And that 'word' was the oral proclamation of the Gospel by Paul, something not found in their Scriptures at all. Based upon your view, since Paul's proclamation that the person of Jesus Christ had died and rose from the dead could not be found in Scripture, they should have denied it, correct?

Click to expand...

Jesus to the Jewish religious leaders ...

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

BobRyan said:

1. The Bereans were not even Christian at all.
2. Paul as a Christian Apostles was an absolute nobody to them
3. The oral teaching of their own majisterium flatly condemned Paul.
4. The only thing they had to go on - was the "sola scriptura test" and based on that alone they defied all the oral teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead.



True - they had to defy all the tradition and teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead and the only thing that they could base that on - was their sola scriptura test.

Click to expand...

1. The Bereans become Christian because they accept the Gospel spoken to them by Paul in oral form.
2. The oral teaching of their own magisterium does flatly condemn Paul, just as they flatly condemn the deutero-canonical book of the OT and the Gospels as being Scripture. Yet you turn to them as your authority to determine the OT canon. Why is that? In one breath you condemn their authority and in another you embrace it.
3. The Bereans do defy the oral teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead. In doing so, they accept the Church as the authentic teaching authority.
.4. If they had merely accepted Paul's teaching regarding the correct interpretation of the OT texts and thus began to watch and pray for the Messiah who was a suffering servant to come, then you would have a valid case that they are noble practioners of sola-Scripura. But they go beyond what they can find in the Scripture and accept the witness of the Church that the historical person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled those prophecies. The minute they do that, they cease to rely on Scripture alone for accepting the Truth. They are therefore not a worthy example of someone practicing sola-Scriptura at all.

BobRyan said:

Not according to the text. It says that they "studied the scriptures to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were so"

If they had not used scripture - then all they would have to go on would be the oral teaching and tradition of their magisterium which demanded that they reject Paul.

Click to expand...

They still accept the oral teaching of the magisterium of the Church -- the apostle Paul speaking to them the Truth that the historical person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled those prophecies. They simply traded one magisterial authority for another. That teaching authority of the Church is later well documented and supported in the New Testament Scriptures. They made a wise choice.

BobRyan said:

Which would lead them to Isaiah 53 as Christ reminds us.

Luke 24
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

...31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day

Click to expand...

These men in Luke's Gospel had the advantage of a first hand experience of the Risen Lord. The Bereans did not. They accepted the oral testimony of the Church that the person of Jesus Christ had indeed suffered, died, and risen from the dead. Fortunately they did not require that Truth to be found in Scripture, or they would have by necessity rejected it.

BobRyan said:

"Sanctify them in Thy TRUTH -- Thy WORD is Truth" John 17:17


1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Click to expand...

In John 17:17 -- Christ is speaking of himself. Thy WORD (logos) is Truth. The WORD (logos) that became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) is Truth. Jesus had just told the apostles that HE Is the TRUTH.

The Bible is the written word of God. It is not the totality of the Word of God. The Word of God is first and foremost Christ himself as the Scriptures attest (John 1:1-5,14, 1 Kings 12:22, Psalm 33:4, Psalm 33:6, John 17:17-18, Acts 11:1, Rev 19:13, Hebrews 4:12-16, 1 Chronicles 17:3, 2 Chronicles 11:2, Ezekiel 21:1, Jeremiah 1:4, Psalm 56:4, Psalm 119:74, Psalm 119:81, Psalm 119:89, Psalm 119:160, Psalm 130:5, Acts 11:1). It is also the oral word of God as spoken by the apostles as the Scriptures attest (Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28, Acts 4:31, Acts 13:5, Acts 13:46, 1 Thessalonian 2:13, Isaiah 1:10, Jeremiah 19:3, Luke 8:12, Luke 8:21, Acts 13:7, Acts 15:7, Philippians 1:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Hebrews 13:7, 2 Kings 23:16, 2 Chronicles 10:15). It is also the body of believers, the Church as the Scriptures attest (Acts 6:7, Acts 12:24). The "word of God" spoken of in Scripture has no equivalency to Scripture "alone" and should not be used as though it does.

narnia59 said:

The Orthodox Jews who flatly rejected those texts also rejected the Gospels as being Scripture.

Click to expand...

True -- because the OT was not written by NT Christians - also true of the Apocrypha.

These are not NT Christian documents. Josephus' point remains - - magisterium that had authority during the writing of both the OT text and the bogus apocrypha - rejected the apocrypha.

You can state that anyone who left Israel before 500 B.C. wouldn't have those texts, but that doesn't explain how the Ethiopian Jews would have then later obtained them

Click to expand...

It is hard to imagine a scenario where publically available Greek texts of any kind at all "could not have been" available in Ethiopia.

A_Thinker said:

Jesus to the Jewish religious leaders ...

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Click to expand...

Check your translations. The New KVJ corrects that one, and in context Jesus is not upholding sola-Scriptura at all. This is not a command by Christ to them to study the Scriptures. He's simply making a statement that the Jews search the Scriptures believing that in them they think they have eternal life. Yet even though those Scriptures do testify of Him, they are not willing to come to Him. Searching the Scriptures does not get them where they need to be...

37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

BobRyan said:

True -- because the OT was not written by NT Christians - also true of the Apocrypha.

These are not NT Christian documents. Josephus' point remains - - magisterium that had authority during the writing of both the OT text and the bogus apocrypha - rejected the apocrypha.



It is hard to imagine a scenario where publically available Greek texts of any kind at all "could not have been" available in Ethiopia.

Click to expand...

If the Jewish leaders had authentic magisterial authority from God to define what is and is not Scripture, then they have authentic magisterial authority from God over the Bereans as well. You can't have it both ways.

1 Cor 4:9
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"

If the rule is used in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" but if you insert your wording into it -- then that text is saying that only the accepted scriptures as known at the writing of Acts 17:11 is the "Word of God" and only those texts are valid rules for testing faith, tradition and practice. Not the remainder of Acts not even the writings of the NT since the Bereans were surely not reading any NT texts while still non-Christian Jews.

narnia59 said:

The Bereans were more noble because they "accepted the word with great joy". That word was the oral Gospel proclaimed by Paul.

Click to expand...

1. The Bereans were not even Christian at all.
2. Paul as a Christian Apostles was an absolute nobody to them
3. The oral teaching of their own majisterium flatly condemned Paul.
4. The only thing they had to go on - was the "sola scriptura test" and based on that alone they defied all the oral teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead.

narnia59 said:

If you read back to Paul's encounter with the Thessalonians, the argument they were having with Paul over Scripture is the concept that the Messiah had to suffer and die. The Israelites had been conditioned by their leadership to ignore those verses in favor of the ones that foretold the coming of a majestic king, not a suffering servant.

Click to expand...

True - they had to defy all the tradition and teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead and the only thing that they could base that on - was their sola scriptura test.

narnia59 said:

But the bottom line is this -- if the Bereans had been sola-Scriptura they would still be Jews.

Click to expand...

Not according to the text. It says that they "studied the scriptures to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were so"

If they had not used scripture - then all they would have to go on would be the oral teaching and tradition of their magisterium which demanded that they reject Paul.

Because when Paul proclaimed to them that the person of Jesus Christ had been crucified and risen from the dead, they would have had to ask the all important sola-Scriptura question -- where is that in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Which would lead them to Isaiah 53 as Christ reminds us.

Luke 24
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

...31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day

narnia59 said:

1. The Bereans become Christian because they accept the Gospel spoken to them by Paul in oral form.

Click to expand...

Which they had no reason to do - other than the sola scriptura test that the Acts 17:11 text says they used - since the oral traditions of their own magisterium flatly rejected Paul.

(As already noted0

2. The oral teaching of their own magisterium does flatly condemn Paul

Click to expand...

Which is the salient point behind the argument that they could only have used the "sola scriptura" method to make that leap away from the oral traditions of their own magisterium - rather than - the alternative of "only sticking with the oral traditions of their own magisterium"

, just as they flatly condemn the deutero-canonical book of the OT and the Gospels as being Scripture. Yet you turn to them as your authority to determine the OT canon. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Because OT magisterium is the authority over its own texts.

I thought that was the obvious part of my argument.

3. The Bereans do defy the oral teaching of their own magisterium to go with Paul's teaching instead.

Click to expand...

True and the only reason given in Acts 17:11 for that leap away from their own magisterium - is "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so"

How is this not the obvious part?

.4. If they had merely accepted Paul's teaching regarding the correct interpretation of the OT texts and thus began to watch and pray for the Messiah who was a suffering servant to come, then you would have a valid case that they are noble practioners of sola-Scripura. But they go beyond what they can find in the Scripture and accept the witness of the Church

Click to expand...

There is no "accept the witness of the church" statement in Acts 17:11 as if the text had said "they studied the traditions of the NT church to see IF the things spoken to them by Paul were so" since that would be circular reasoning. the whole point is that their own accepted magisterium oral teaching opposed both the NT Christian church and Paul.

this point is irrefutable.

The point remains.

that the historical person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled those prophecies.

Click to expand...

Which they could not know until they studied the scriptures to "see if" those things were so. Just as the text states.

The minute they do that, they cease to rely on Scripture alone

Click to expand...

That is a self-conflicted argument to insist that by studying the scriptures to "see IF" those things were so - they were not relying on the test of scripture to "see IF" those things were so.

narnia59 said:

If the Jewish leaders had authentic magisterial authority from God to define what is and is not Scripture, then they have authentic magisterial authority from God over the Bereans as well. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Yes they had authority over all of it - but just like the prophets of the Christian church in the NT that in the first century are used by God to create written texts that are in fact new scripture but then later turn to doctrinal error in the dark ages and is rejected in the protestant reformation - it is the same thing "repeated".

It wold be a self-conflicted circular argument to claim that non-Christian Jews in the first century abandoned their own magisterium since "that was the way it should be done" without any appeal to scripture and simply based on "some other splinter group holding to a difference". That does not make sense.

The rejection of their own stated magisterium based on sola scriptura testing of Bible students in Acts 17:11 is the exact same method used in the Protestant Reformation. The only difference being that in Acts 17:11 it is non-Christians deciding to break with their Magisterium - whereas in the Protestant Reformation - it is Catholics rejecting their own Catholic Magisterium.

narnia59 said:

If the Jewish leaders had authentic magisterial authority from God .

Click to expand...

They had no followers saying to themselves "our magisterium has no authentic magisterial authority" and the OT texts as true scripture are not doubted even today by either Jews or Christians.

Still that did not stop that magisterium from rejecting Christ because at some point they went astray and when that happened all the Jews did not instantly "jump off the wagon".

The OT was written and rejected before the time of Christ - and Christ did not start off his ministry saying "the magisterium is now invalid because they rejected the apocrypha".

As I am sure we all know.

Rather the Jews were condemned in the Gospels for their rejection of Christ - not the apocrypha.

John 1:11 "He came to His own and His own received Him not"

Still.. at the start of His ministry He could say this to those who debated against the Jewish religion "salvation is of the Jews" John 4.

So the idea that He started off rejecting their magisterium as illegit - is not supported by the Bible.

BobRyan said:

Yes they had authority over all of it - but just like the prophets of the Christian church in the NT that in the first century are used by God to create written texts that are in fact new scripture but then later turn to doctrinal error in the dark ages and is rejected in the protestant reformation - it is the same thing "repeated".

It wold be a self-conflicted circular argument to claim that non-Christian Jews in the first century abandoned their own magisterium since "that was the way it should be done" without any appeal to scripture and simply based on "some other splinter group holding to a difference". That does not make sense.

The rejection of their own stated magisterium based on sola scriptura testing of Bible students in Acts 17:11 is the exact same method used in the Protestant Reformation. The only difference being that in Acts 17:11 it is non-Christians deciding to break with their Magisterium - whereas in the Protestant Reformation - it is Catholics rejecting their own Catholic Magisterium.

Click to expand...

It is flatly not the same method used in the Protestant Reformation. Protestantism institutes a doctrine of sola-Scriptura which professes that the only Truth to be accepted must be found in Scripture. The Bereans quite willingly accept Truth not found in Scripture. They accept the oral teaching of the Church that the person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled the OT prophecies. The only thing they could validate with Scripture were that the prophecies existed. They had no Scripture that attested to the fulfillment of those prophecies by the specific person of Jesus Christ. By Protestant and sola-Scriptural standards, they could never had accepted the Truth that Jesus Christ had fulfilled those prophecies. If they had been practioners of the doctrine of sola-Scriptura, they would have had to waited until both the New Testament was written and compiled, and then accepted that it was Scripture based upon the testimony of 'some other splinter group holding to a difference'. As a result,they would have been dead without Christ.

Christ establishes the leadership authority of His Church in his apostles. This is why when they speak, Scripture refers to it as the 'word of God'. When the Bereans reject the authority of the Jewish magisterium, they are rejecting those who have rejected Christ and the authority He established. When Protestants reject the Catholic magisterium, they are rejecting the authority that Christ established in His church. Quite a big difference between the two actually.