My Brand New Thread.

[daverain]

I'm starting a brand new-thread.



I will -try my hardest to- make no more replys to this thread myself,
-unless God commands me (aaaaah!).




----------
Here goes:
----------



*************************
--------------------------------
Praise God for His New Covenant!!
---------------------------------
**************************

=Eternal-Life in, with, and from Jesus Christ!


Aaaah, Thank-you Jesus.



So...


What doth thou thinkest to the following? :


(my beliefs to be tested by all)


Jesus said of the pharisees at the time:

"...therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds..."

-N.A.S.B. (I use that particular bible, I'm sorry if I offend anyone by this.)



Again, Jesus said: "...all that they tell you do and observe..."


I feel and believe that He means by this:

We should TEST what is said (by teachers, leader, others, etc.),
and IF it is of God, we should follow the teaching / If it is not, we shouldn't.



I'll try to back up with scripture that Jesus ATTACKED certain teachings of them as FALSE FOR EVERYONE, and that EVERYONE should NOT FOLLOW certain teachings of them "seated in Moses' seat":


(about the pharisees -certain- teachings)

Matthew:
---------
13:34 to 35 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

"The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil."



16:6 And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the pharisees and saducees."

16:12 Then the understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the TEACHING of the pharisees and Saducees."

23:4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."

etc, etc, etc,



My question to fellow Christians:

Should we test EVERY teaching from EVERYONE (no matter who) all the time?

(I'm open, and curious in hearing various opinions/explanations etc. on this.)

 

[PeterPaul]

No. What is the measure that you have to evaluate the result?

If you say God, then you must substantiate how we can have varying degrees of "revelation" amongst all Christians.

If it isn't God, then are you willing to admit that your conclusions may be reached by you, and that which makes "sense" to you, and that you are fallible, while the Church has stood for 2000 years before you?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Should we test EVERY teaching from EVERYONE (no matter who) all the time?

If it's the words of man, yes, most definately.

But what do you test these words with? The Bible? It's true that the Bible contains some of the teachings of Christ, but it is not complete. Only the Catholic Church contains the fullness Christ's teachings, so our test should be based on Catholic teaching.

So anything anyone says, we test it by the teachings of Christ's Church, which is the "pillar and foundation of truth", not the bible alone. It is thus that her teachings do not need to be questioned or tested, but rather, anything anyone else says should be tested with her teachings.

May the Lord give you His peace!

-Davide

 

[geocajun]

Should we test EVERY teaching from EVERYONE (no matter who) all the time?

(I'm open, and curious in hearing various opinions/explanations etc. on this.)

St. Paul says yes -
1 Thess 5:21 "Test everything; retain what is good."

But one should be prudent when testing things - the others were right in asking why what means will you be testing things? Early Christians tested doctrines by asking someone who their Bishop was to see if the teaching came from someone with Apostolic succession.
You should have some sort of objective source which you can test all things against, like rock upon which the Church was built, and which the gates of hell cannot prevail - for example
The inspiration of scipture for example, is virtually untestable apart from the teaching from the Catholic Church, which tells us that it is inspired and how many books are contained within it.
Luther recognized that, and when he rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, he threw out books of the bible along with it. Why? because he rightly recognized that without the Church, the books of the bible are up for grabs - using the same logic Luther used, one could reject the whole of scripture if they do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church. This is because we Christians accept it out of obedience to authority, not because scripture somehow passed a test which proved itself to be inspired apart from Catholic teaching.

 

[daverain]

(I really am trying to keep out of this thread I've started.)

Wow! This 'forum-place' is INDEED profound!



Anyways, ....


When I said TEST,


-I- mean the following:





I pray to God. I speak to Him my exact question:



(eg: I say "Please God, show me if this particular teaching is true or false?)


Then...

Over time (like up to a couple of weeks), without ANY effort on my part (-no 'meditation' etc. ,)...

He (God) answers me!


He does this using: Thoughts (often verses) ; Feelings ; and -most important to me- 'signs' (in life) , in a way that makes it CLEAR it's from Him.





An apostle named Paul brought teachings to a people (called Bereans).

The teachings although 'eagerly received by them' , were TESTED by them as well.

-Acts: 17:11 .



So...


What thinkest thou? (plural)

 

[PeterPaul]

I think that he must be telling you one thing, because I have the same experience, yet somehow I am led somewhere else. How is that possible? I thought God was absolute.

BTW: Satan also leads us to conclusions.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I thought God was absolute.

Wouldn't that make for a great Absolut advertisment... There are so many possibilities!

 

[geocajun]

daverain, God did not leave us here with mearly our feelings and prayer to arbitrate the truth - if He did, we are all in big trouble
Jesus founded a visible Church (Matt 16:18) - the Catholic Church - on St. Peter, to help guide you and give you the oppurtunity to know the truth.
There are some 30,000 denominations out there, all of which claim to have the truth - this sure doesnt lend itself to the theory that we pray on it, and whatever makes sense to us after that, must be true because it feels right.
Think about it that.

 

[daverain]

(Sorry again. I really am sorry, but I felt as if an URGENCY of God wanted me here. I'll try to be brief.)



Praise God for the fact that SO MANY people with:

SO MANY different personalities (for surely we ALL differ somewhere),

CAN THUS have DIFFERING BELIEFS and still BE SAVED!!!


Thank God for that (gotta go).


What about 'the-Bereans' I mentioned?

I'm now going to try to stay away for at least a few hours.



God be with you brothers (and sisters to).

In Christ's Name,
Amen.

 

[geocajun]

CAN THUS have DIFFERING BELIEFS and still BE SAVED!!!

what does that mean exactly?

What about 'the-Bereans' I mentioned?

what about em? is the simple mention of the phrase "the bereans" supposed to inspire some particular response?

 

[Michelina]

Acts 17:10 But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. 12 And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few.

"More noble"... The Jews of Berea are justly commended, for their eagerly embracing the truth, and searching the scriptures, to find out the texts alleged by the apostle: which was a far more generous proceeding than that of their countrymen at Thessalonica, who persecuted the preachers of the gospel, without examining the grounds they alleged for what they taught.

Geo, our brother Dave (rain) may think that the fact that the Jews of Berea studied the OT to see if Our Lord really fulfilled the prophesies might indicate that Christians should do the same, ignoring the Church and Magisterium. I call this "The Lone Ranger Attitude" which some Protestant Americans think is normal. If I am correct about that "Attitude", then the verse saying that Scripture is NOT to be interpreted by individuals goes right out the window.

 

[Skripper]

I wrote this some time back, for another similar discussion. But I saved it because this misinterpretation of Acts 17:11 is always dredged up sooner or later in an attempt to advocate personal, private interpretation of Scripture, usually when one's personal opinion is at odds with something taught by Christ's Church. And somebody wants to "prove" that they are "right" and Christ's Church is "wrong." The problem is, the verse is, always and without fail, wrenched entirely out of context. Amputated from not only its immediate context but also isolated from the rest of Scripture, then absoutized and held up as some sort of "proof" for holding one's personal, private interpretations, beliefs, teachings and opinions above those of Christ's Church, which was duly authorized by Christ Himself to teach that which He entrusted to it, in the form of divine revelation, and guided by the Holy Spirit, to ensure its integrity and fidelity to our Lord and His teachings.

ACTS 17: 11 AND SOLA SCRIPTURA​

Many Protestants imagine that this brief passage in Acts 17, namely verses 10-12, demonstrates that everyone, even Paul himself, must be judged against the individual Christian’s personal interpretation of Scripture. But that’s not at all what the passage, taken in context all the way back to verse 1, is saying.

Regarding Paul and the Bereans in Acts chapter 17. That is not a proof text for sola scriptura or for the Bible as court of last appeal. In fact, in context, what’s actually going on is more like what we see with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8. Or for that matter, with Jesus Himself in Luke 24: 27. But in Acts chapter 17 it is Paul, (rather than Jesus in Luke 24 or Philip in Acts chapter 8) who is explaining the proper interpretationof the OT scriptures relating to the Messiah. It is not a case of the Bereans sitting in "judgment" of Paul or his teaching, as though they are holding Paul's teachings up to their own personal interpretation of Scripture . . . no. Because they already had their own opinions of what Scripture said regarding the Messiah . . . and they were still waiting for Him. Instead, they searched the Scriptures according to Paul's interpretations, to compare what Paul was saying to their prior understanding of it, to contemplate if they may have been wrong and if, possibly, Paul was right and Jesus actually was the Messiah they'd been waiting for. They wanted to see if this could be supported by Paul's understanding and interpretation.

In other words, they were willing to abandon their "sola scriptura" mindset, their personal opinions and private interpretations, and were willing to defer to and accept Paul's teaching and interpretations, if what Paul was saying could in fact be harmonized with with the OT Scripture which, of course, it not only could, but did. This is why they were said to be more "fair minded" than the Thessalonians. Because the Thessalonians refused to do this and instead insisted on sticking to their own interpretations . . . and ran Paul out of town. So actually, it was the Thessalonians that were the real "Bible only sola scripturist" and not the Bereans.

Moreover, it is Paul himself who first brings Scripture into the discussion, (and not the Thessalonians or the Bereans), in order to demonstrate from the OT that in fact Jesus is the Messiah.

Paul is merely explaining the proper interpretation, to the Bereans, of the OT Scriptures that they were already familiar with—exactly the same as he had just done with the Thessalonians a few verses earlier. Why? Because both (the Thessalonians and the Bereans) were misinterpreting them, because both were still waiting for the coming of the Messiah. So Paul says, “Hey, He’s already come and His name is Jesus, whom I am proclaiming to you now.” (I’m paraphrasing verse 3 of course, but that’s what Paul is doing and saying). Paul is not promoting sola scriptura. And Paul is not teaching them sola scriptura, anymore than Philip is teaching the Ethiopian eunuch sola scriptura in Acts chapter 8 verses 30-31.

Let’s look at it from the beginning of the Acts 17 passage, from where it starts, at verses 1 and 2. We see Paul going into the synagogue, in Thessalonica, and entering into discussions with them (the Jews) from the scriptures (verse 2). Why? To teach them sola scriptura? No way. He went in there to teach them the proper understandingof the scriptures as they relate to the Messiah, whom Paul says is Jesus (verse 3). Paul is not proclaiming “Bible only” nor is he promoting the Bible as “court of last appeal”. Because, after all, Paul is bringing to them new, oral revelation, for heaven’s sake! Oral revelation that he didn’t read or learn from any man, (like he points out in Galatians), but rather oral revelation that he received directly from God, directly from the Messiah, directly from Jesus Christ.


Paul is trying to show the Thessalonians the proper interpretation of the OT, just like Jesus is doing in Luke 24 and Philip is doing in Acts chapter 8. Paul is not promoting sola scriptura, nor Bible as “court of last appeal”. He’s not doing that with the Thessalonians in Acts 17: 1-9 and he’s also certainly not teaching it with the Bereans in verses 10-12. Paul did the exact same thing with the Bereans as he did with the Thessalonians a few verses earlier, before the Thessalonians chased him out of town and into Beroea. Namely, he “expounded and demonstrated” (verse 3) the proper understandingof the OT Scriptures regarding the coming of the Messiah--Jesus.

And the only difference between the Bereans and the Thessalonians is that the Borean Jews accepted Paul’s explanations and interpretations (verse 11)—[and his oral revelation, btw], whereas the majority of the Thessalonian Jews rejected Paul’s explanation of the proper interpretation of the OT scriptures (verses 5-9).

The majority of the Jews in Thessalonica rejectedJesus as the Messiah--why? Precisely because they practiced a form of “sola scriptura” and Bible as “court of last appeal”, that’s why. They refusedto accept any “outside authority”, in this case, the Apostle Paul, to help them properly interpret the Scriptures in the synagogue with respect to the Messiah, whom Paul was telling them was Jesus. Instead, they arrogantly and pridefully stuck to their own private interpretations and perceptions of who they thought the Messiah should be based on their own opinions of what they thought the OT Scriptures meant. There’s your “sola scriptura”. There’s your personally interpreted Bible as “court of last appeal”, in the Thessalonian Jews who rejected Paul’s authoritative explanations and interpretations of Scripture.

They wanted a conquering warrior Messiah, after all the oppression they had suffered through at the hands of the Romans, and at the hands of the Egyptians before them. Yet Paul was preaching a meek, suffering Messiah (verse 3), something they did not want to hear. So they stuck to their sola scriptura private interpretations. But they were wrong. And they ran Paul out of town on a rail (verses 5-9), and he ended up in Beroea. Once there, Paul did the exact same thing with the Jews in Beroea as he had just done with the Jews in Thessalonica. But these Jews in Beroea were not quite so stubborn, they were more “fair minded than those in Thessalonica” (verse 11) and acceptedPaul’s authoritative expounding and explaining of what the properinterpretation of the OT Scriptures are regarding the Messiah. In other words, the Bereans rejected sola scriptura and accepted Paul's authoritative interpretation of Scriptures. Paul, the very personification of what Catholics refer to as the Church magisterium.


So that passage in Acts is not supporting sola scriptura, and it is not supporting the Bible as “court of last appeal” as interpreted by individual Christians. Paul’s interpretations are correct, yes. But Paul is an apostle—part of (the early) what Catholics refer to as the magisterium of the Church. That passage in Acts actually supports the Catholic position for the need of an outside authoritative source of proper scriptural interpretation other than the individual. That is exactly the Catholic position. That passage in Acts, in context, in no way refutes the Catholic position. It in fact supports it…

 

[PeterPaul]

Bravo Skrip! Thanks for the post. I learned a lot.

 

[daverain]

(Sorry, here again. I'm going to bed now, so I'll leave this forum for the night.)

Hi.
Blessings.

I meant the differing beliefs among ALL OF US WHO: Have The Holy Spirit.

(For surely even BROTHERS differ on at least SOME things).


Oh,

I mentioned a story concerning some Bereans Who Tested The Apostle Paul's Teachings:



An apostle named Paul brought teachings to a people (called Bereans).

The teachings although 'eagerly received by them' , were TESTED by them as well.

-Acts: 17:11 .



So...


What thinkest thou? (plural)


(I'll shoo away for a while now)

-Good evening all.

 

[Skripper]

(Sorry, here again. I'm going to bed now, so I'll leave this forum for the night.)

Hi.
Blessings.

I meant the differing beliefs among ALL OF US WHO: Have The Holy Spirit.

(For surely even BROTHERS differ on at least SOME things).


Oh,

I mentioned a story concerning some Bereans Who Tested The Apostle Paul's Teachings:

An apostle named Paul brought teachings to a people (called Bereans).

The teachings although 'eagerly received by them' , were TESTED by them as well.

-Acts: 17:11 .



So...


What thinkest thou? (plural)


(I'll shoo away for a while now)

-Good evening all.

Already asked . . . and already answered. Next question?

 

[Rising_Suns]

I mentioned a story concerning some Bereans Who Tested The Apostle Paul's Teachings:

An apostle named Paul brought teachings to a people (called Bereans).

The teachings although 'eagerly received by them' , were TESTED by them as well.

-Acts: 17:11 .



So...


What thinkest thou? (plural)


(I'll shoo away for a while now)

-Good evening all.

Daverain, peace be with you,
I believe your question was answered in post #11 and #12.

May the Lord give you His peace!

-Davide

 

[daverain]

Ooops egads (NOW I see a reply)

O.K. considering someone has MANY words indeed to TRY and prove his point, I must take a while now, and test them.

(I'll probably be gone about a week, unless God instructs me otherwise).


I'll pray to God, and let you know His Answer.


(I mean of course what 'I' think His answer is)

(but please let's not turn conversation into 'daverain attacking Jesus', or something like that. Let's be courteous now.)
Take care,

Night-all.

 

[PeterPaul]

You say "try" and prove his point. However, you haven't replied to it. How interesting.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Ooops egads (NOW I see a reply)

O.K. considering someone has MANY words indeed to TRY and prove his point, I must take a while now, and test them.



(I'll probably be gone about a week, unless God instructs me otherwise).





I'll pray to God, and let you know His Answer.





(I mean of course what 'I' think His answer is)



(but please let's not turn conversation into 'daverain attacking Jesus', or something like that. Let's be courteous now.)

Take care,



Night-all.

Daverain, peace be with you,

The simple answer to the broader quesition you are asking is; Sola Scriptura is unScriptural.

Although it is true that the Apostles tested words through Old Testament Scripture to help explain to the Jews that Christ is the messiah, no where does it say anything remotely close to the Bible being the only authority of God; nowhere in Scripture is it written that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority of God.

May the Lord give you His peace!

-Davide

 

[daverain]

(Sorry again, I can't sleep, and suddenly feel a 'burden' to be here -but I'll quickly leave if possible.)

Thank You all for replying.


Thank you Rising_Suns.


I like your style (although we disagree on things -and WHO doesn't?- , I feel YOUR answers to be Caring, Well thought out, Non-condemning, Brief, and To the point.)


I feel God works best through Christians in this way.


(-Peace be with you as well.)

(I have a lot 'on my plate' now, as it were, and I thus: 'Need some time to digest a few things')

Blessings,

God's peace to us all.