Sola Scriptura: the Thessalonians and the Bereans give us a demonstration.

[Tradidi]

In Acts 17:1-13, St. Paul narrates his experience with the Thessalonians and the Bereans. Both of them were Jews, both of them were "fully equipped" with the same "God-breathed" Scriptures, both of them heard the same Paul preach the same Gospel, both of them "searched the Scriptures", and yet, the Thessalonians ended up rejecting the Gospel and driving Paul out of town, while the Bereans ended up accepting the Gospel and becoming believers.

So, what was the difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans that caused the former to reject the Gospel and the latter to accept it?

 

[Athanasius377]

In Acts 10:1-13, St. Paul narrates his experience with the Thessalonians and the Bereans. Both of them were Jews, both of them were "fully equipped" with the same "God-breathed" Scriptures, both of them heard the same Paul preach the same Gospel, both of them "searched the Scriptures", and yet, the Thessalonians ended up rejecting the Gospel and driving Paul out of town, while the Bereans ended up accepting the Gospel and becoming believers.

So, what was the difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans that caused the former to reject the Gospel and the latter to accept it?

Jealously.

 

[Tradidi]

You mean Acts 17:1-13? Jealously.

Yes, thanks for the correction. I've updated the OP.

 

[thecolorsblend]

In Acts 17:1-13, St. Paul narrates his experience with the Thessalonians and the Bereans. Both of them were Jews, both of them were "fully equipped" with the same "God-breathed" Scriptures, both of them heard the same Paul preach the same Gospel, both of them "searched the Scriptures", and yet, the Thessalonians ended up rejecting the Gospel and driving Paul out of town, while the Bereans ended up accepting the Gospel and becoming believers.

So, what was the difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans that caused the former to reject the Gospel and the latter to accept it?

Well, the Bereans rejected that whole "sola scriptura" bit, for one thing. So there's that.

 

[Tradidi]

Jealously.

I don't understand. Are you saying it was jealousy that was the difference?

 

[Athanasius377]

Well, the Bereans rejected that whole "sola scriptura" bit, for one thing. So there's that.

How so?

 

[Athanasius377]

I don't understand. Are you saying it was jealousy that was the difference?

Is that not what the text says?

This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. 5 But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

 

[dqhall]

In Acts 17:1-13, St. Paul narrates his experience with the Thessalonians and the Bereans. Both of them were Jews, both of them were "fully equipped" with the same "God-breathed" Scriptures, both of them heard the same Paul preach the same Gospel, both of them "searched the Scriptures", and yet, the Thessalonians ended up rejecting the Gospel and driving Paul out of town, while the Bereans ended up accepting the Gospel and becoming believers.

So, what was the difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans that caused the former to reject the Gospel and the latter to accept it?

Some of the opponents of Jesus countered him with “Only Torah” arguments. They were Sadducees and did not accept the books of the prophets as scripture.

Some of Paul’s opponents included the Law and the Prophets, but did not accept the Gospels or his letters to be God given scripture.

How many writings today are inspired even though fundamentalists can not accept them?

 

[chevyontheriver]

In Acts 17:1-13, St. Paul narrates his experience with the Thessalonians and the Bereans. Both of them were Jews, both of them were "fully equipped" with the same "God-breathed" Scriptures, both of them heard the same Paul preach the same Gospel, both of them "searched the Scriptures", and yet, the Thessalonians ended up rejecting the Gospel and driving Paul out of town, while the Bereans ended up accepting the Gospel and becoming believers.

So, what was the difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans that caused the former to reject the Gospel and the latter to accept it?

The Jews of Thessalonika were by far the better Sola Scriptura folks. The Jews of Berea followed the Scriptures but were open to whatever God was saying to them consistent with the Scriptures.

 

[Athanasius377]

Some of the opponents of Jesus countered him with “Only Torah” arguments. They were Sadducees and did not accept the books of the prophets as scripture.

Some of Paul’s opponents included the Law and the Prophets, but did not accept the Gospels or his letters to be God given scripture.

How many writings today are inspired even though fundamentalists can not accept them?

Where does it say that in the text? We need to be careful not to go beyond what Scripture says. It is likely that there were no written NT documents yet. Paul was preaching and reasoning from the OT Scriptures and from the Gospel he received from Jesus Himself. Which does not refute Sola Scriptura because we do not deny that scriptures were taught in oral form at first. But we have that apostolic teaching today in written form.

 

[Tradidi]

Is that not what the text says?

This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. 5 But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The text says the Jews were jealous, but what were they jealous of?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don't understand. Are you saying it was jealousy that was the difference?

The Bereans accepted radical new doctrines received via oral transmission on the basis that they harmonized with Sacred Scripture. That is literally the Magisterium. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture both come from the same source so they will harmonize with each other. It's inevitable that they will harmonize with each other. The Bereans, being of a more noble character, understood that and so they accepted what St. Paul said when they recognized the agreement Sacred Scripture had with what St. Paul preached.

The jews of Thessalonica demonstrated a reaction far closer to "sola scriptura", inasmuch as they rejected what St. Paul preached. The text says they were "jealous" but I am not concerned with their motives for rejecting St. Paul. My point is that the Thessalonian jews behavior certainly resembles a"sola scriptura" reaction.

The Bereans did not believe in, did not practice and would not have understood "sola scriptura".

 

[eleos1954]

The text says the Jews were jealous, but what were they jealous of?

Acts 17
4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few leading women.

They were jealous because Paul's teachings were drawing large numbers of people.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

In Acts 17:1-13, St. Paul narrates his experience with the Thessalonians and the Bereans. Both of them were Jews, both of them were "fully equipped" with the same "God-breathed" Scriptures, both of them heard the same Paul preach the same Gospel, both of them "searched the Scriptures", and yet, the Thessalonians ended up rejecting the Gospel and driving Paul out of town, while the Bereans ended up accepting the Gospel and becoming believers.

So, what was the difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans that caused the former to reject the Gospel and the latter to accept it?

The difference in knowing the truth and not knowing the truth of God's Word in regards to the Thessalonians and the Bereans is the Holy Spirit. We cannot know the truth of Gods' Word unless God reveals it to us *Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:19. What do you think John 5:38-42 means? No one can know the truth of God's Word without God's Spirit being their guide and teacher *John 14:26; John 16:13. God's Spirit works through the Word of God not outside of it as it is the Spirit of the Word of God *John 6:63 which we are saved by as we believe them *John 17:17; Ephesians 2:8; 1 John 5:4. The Jews in general had the Word of God and it was the Word of God that testified of Jesus as the Messiah yet he came unto his own and his own received him not (John 1:1-14) and crucified the very son of God their own scriptures pointed to. Why? Because they they had the Word of God in the scriptures but did not seek God for the truth of his Word. I also believe that it was God's plan to hide the truth from the learned and to reveal it to babes as the Jews represented Gods people and Jesus the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world *John 1:29

 

[Athanasius377]

The Bereans accepted radical new doctrines received via oral transmission on the basis that they harmonized with Sacred Scripture. That is literally the Magisterium. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture both come from the same source so they will harmonize with each other. It's inevitable that they will harmonize with each other. The Bereans, being of a more noble character, understood that and so they accepted what St. Paul said when they recognized the agreement Sacred Scripture had with what St. Paul preached.

That is frankly a terrible reading of the text. Perhaps it’s the use of the word “radical”. There was nothing radical about the Gospel rather it was the fulfillment of the law and prophets. Does not every page of the OT point towards Christ? I would go a step further in that the Gospel Paul preached may have been a “radical” departure when compared with the Tradition of the Elders later codified in the Mishnah (to be fair this is anachronistic as the Mishnah doesn’t appear in its current form for another hundred years or so). The rest of the passage I agree with your exegesis. The Bereans listened to Paul’s gospel and compared it with the Scripture they possessed the OT. Probably the LXX version of the same. Again I will stress we do not deny the NT existed in oral form prior to being written down.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Perhaps it’s the use of the word “radical”. There was nothing radical about the Gospel rather it was the fulfillment of the law and prophets

Whoa, you don't think God taking on human flesh in order to create an entirely new covenant is a big deal?

I mean, if so... golly.

 

[Athanasius377]

Whoa, you don't think God taking on human flesh in order to create an entirely new covenant is a big deal?

I mean, if so... golly.

I would respond with a question. You mean to suggest you don’t see type and shadow throughout the entire OT? You don’t see the Promise on every page? Think of the patriarch Joseph, Or the prophet Samuel and his mother Hannah? (Type and shadow of blessed Mary) Or the prophecies of Isaiah or Jeremiah? The Psalms? I’m not suggesting anything that any Christian in any age would not affirm. My friend, this has nothing to do with SS. It has to do with poor OT hermeneutics.

 

[dqhall]

Where does it say that in the text? We need to be careful not to go beyond what Scripture says. It is likely that there were no written NT documents yet. Paul was preaching and reasoning from the OT Scriptures and from the Gospel he received from Jesus Himself. Which does not refute Sola Scriptura because we do not deny that scriptures were taught in oral form at first. But we have that apostolic teaching today in written form.

Paul had access to the Apostles who were witnesses to Jesus’ miraculous ministry. Luke, perhaps the same Luke who wrote a Gospel testimony and Acts was with Paul. They were keeping records of church activities in the form of books/scrolls and letters.

2 Timothy 4:9 Be diligent to come to me soon, 10 for Demas left me, having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia; and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. 12 But I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 Bring the cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus when you come, and the books, especially the parchments. 14 Alexander, the coppersmith, did much evil to me. The Lord will repay him according to his deeds, 15 of whom you also must beware; for he greatly opposed our words.

These passages explain what happened nearly 20 centuries ago. People also need testimonies of God’s miracles in recent times.

 

[Athanasius377]

Paul had access to the Apostles who were witnesses to Jesus’ miraculous ministry. Luke, perhaps the same Luke who wrote a Gospel testimony and Acts was with Paul. They were keeping records of church activities in the form of books and letters.

2 Timothy 4:9 Be diligent to come to me soon, 10 for Demas left me, having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia; and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. 12 But I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 Bring the cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus when you come, and the books, especially the parchments. 14 Alexander, the coppersmith, did much evil to me. The Lord will repay him according to his deeds, 15 of whom you also must beware; for he greatly opposed our words.

These passages explain what happened nearly 20 centuries ago. People also need testimonies of God’s miracles in recent times.

Sure. I agree but there is difficulty in Assuming what the sadducees has as far as canon. We know they didn’t believe in the the resurrection but there is debate on what they had as OT Canon. Add to that the passage doesn’t address it so it’s better to let the plain reading of the passage stand. Would it explain a lot. You bet. But God the Holy Spirit deigned it not important so we should go with that.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I would respond with a question. You mean to suggest you don’t see type and shadow throughout the entire OT? You don’t see the Promise on every page? Think of the patriarch Joseph, Or the prophet Samuel and his mother Hannah? (Type and shadow of blessed Mary) Or the prophecies of Isaiah or Jeremiah? The Psalms? I’m not suggesting anything that any Christian in any age would not affirm. My friend, this has nothing to do with SS. It has to do with poor OT hermeneutics.

Yeah whatever, didn't even bother reading.

What I said was "Whoa, you don't think God taking on human flesh in order to create an entirely new covenant is a big deal?"

You haven't answered that yet.