You are making an appeal to "making stuff up" each time the Bible says "scripture" was the rule in Acts 17:4-5 in Acts 17:11 in Luke 24... this is "the easy part".
A Hypothetical is not “making stuff up” no matter how much you protest otherwise. It is a reasonable question to ask whether the Bereans or anyone would be justified in rejecting the Gospel if they concluded from the Old Testament Jesus was not truly the Christ (as a great many Jews did). Your absolute refusal to deal with this problem demonstrates to me at any rate you have no answer other than to repeat what you have previously said. I have not denied that the Bereans read the bible and confirmed from it Christ was who he said, rather my point is that it is not the sole justification for the Bereans and that if they would have been wrong to reject him on the basis of scripture, we should conclude the bible is not the sole final rule of faith.
Circular logic much??
When someone "met" the carpenter from Nazareth what would be their "guide"??? Making stuff up is not the most dependable rule to use. How about an objective standard? As Jesus told them to do it.
Luke 24
24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see.” 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.
Jesus did not go around as you seem to suppose to yourself - and say "whatever I make up ... well that is what you will believe... because the Bible is not trustworthy for things like this".
That example in Luke 24 is a point where Jesus is STILL disguising Himself so they WON'T do exactly what you seem to argue they should do in terms of "proving the point". He wants them to rely instead on "Sola Scriptura" testing.
How exactly am I arguing in a circle? Jesus encountered many Pharisees whom were convinced that Christ was going against the written Torah and to a certain degree he was, undermining their literal application of it by strengthening the moral force of it. Whereas the Torah declared it was a sin to commit adultery, Christ told us it is a sin to merely look at a woman with lust an explanation of which goes beyond the written word. Now if Sola Scriptura is the eternal standard and Christ’s words must be subjugated tot eh Old Testament, the Pharisees if they rejected Christ’s interpretation of the Old would have been justified listening to the literal words of Torah, rather than Christ’s. As Christians however we know that the Lord was authoritative in of himself. Christ’s using of the Old Testament is not a demonstration of Sola Scriptura because he himself was authoritative! In your defence of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I dare say you have forgotten Sola Christus.
[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 71942673, member: 235244] Utter nonsense. You are ignoring almost every detail in the texts and even Christ's own teaching to cling to the imaginative narrative you have going there. But that is hardly an objective unbiased argument -- why not address the actual facts in evidence from scripture??? [/QUOTE]
Instead of telling me that my argument is utter nonsense, why not demonstrate what I have said to be ‘utter nonsense.’ If my reading of your argument (that I think you consider Christ to be dependent on the law for his authority) is wrong tell me how. An appeal to how bias I am is not argument but to state the obvious, that I, like all people am bias. That being said I have been addressing the scripture with regards to this one verse from acts because I know it to be central to the argument of Sola Scriptura.
[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 71942673, member: 235244] Utter Another stellar example of a circular argument? Is there any end???''
How pray tell - is "A Christian" not ALREADY convinced of Christ -- "by definition"??.
don't you mean "a non-Christian"?? one who has YET to be convinced if Christ?? [/QUOTE]
What is exactly circular about my argument? With regards to what I said, I obviously meant a Christian who was convinced of Christ without appeals to the Old Testament. If you are going to be so uncharitable as to ignore my intended meaning I am not sure how long this
discussion can go on for. Needless to say you have not addressed my point here. Do all peoples need to be educated in the Torah first and then hear about Christ in order to believe in him? Or do Christians start from the premise that God came down in the Flesh as Jesus for the sake of world, explaining the history past and future from that central point in human history? If it be the case that knowledge of Christ is all that is necessary, what does that say as to the law? Is Christ utterly dependant on it for his justification? Can Jesus be judged by the law to be false? So says you.
[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 71942673, member: 235244] Paul argues that we should not go around "just believing whatevere someone tells you".
2 Cor 11 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity
of devotion to Christ. 4 For
if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear
this beautifully.
Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is
really not another; only there are
some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But
even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received,
he is to be accursed!
Bible details matter -- sola scriptura is the "solution" the Bible tells us to accept[/QUOTE]
So, let’s assume Sola Scriptura is true. I disbelieve Sola Scriptura yet I am convinced from the bible that the passage in acts regarding the Bereans is not evidence of such a doctrine. Am justified in my belief right despite not holding to it no? That is since I am convinced by Scripture that I am correct you or no one else has any real authority to dismiss my interpretation no?
Also I never said go around and believe whatever someone tells you. That’s a gross mischaracterization of my own ideas. I do believe in willing submission, that God has given us leaders and authorities we ought to listen to even if we aren’t convinced by them and this should be evident because of the Apostles themselves. The Galatians should have listened to Paul as the Corinthians should have. This does not mean submission to authorities is always necessary, such as when Peter would not eat with Gentiles and needed Paul to rebuke him. It’s not one or the other.