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

[Tradidi]

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

Agreed.

But what came first, the Jews rejecting Paul's teachings or the Jews becoming jealous? Why would the Jews become jealous, unless those large numbers were siding with Paul instead of with them? No sane person is jealous because someone has a different opinion. They may have been annoyed, or angry, or offended, but not jealous. Being jealous means that you want something someone else has. I'm not jealous of Protestants because they have a different opinion, on the contrary. The Jews became jealous because they saw that Paul had what they wanted for themselves, in other words, they were in a different camp and the other side was winning. That means that at that point the Jews had already decided to reject Paul.

So what I am saying here is that the Jews' jealousy was a motivation for the Jews to persecute Paul, but not a motivation for the Jews to reject Paul's teaching. The rejecting came first, then when they saw others didn't side with them they became jealous and began persecuting Paul and the Gospel he was preaching.

And why is this important? Because now we can get back to the question in the OP: "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?" We know it wasn't jealousy. What was it then?

 

[JM]

Church Militant is a good Catholic news source to help sort out the current state of Catholic leadership.

 

[Athanasius377]

But what came first, the Jews rejecting Paul's teachings or the Jews becoming jealous? Why would the Jews become jealous, unless those large numbers were siding with Paul instead of with them? No sane person is jealous because someone has a different opinion. They may have been annoyed, or angry, or offended, but not jealous. Being jealous means that you want something someone else has. I'm not jealous of Protestants because they have a different opinion, on the contrary. The Jews became jealous because they saw that Paul had what they wanted for themselves, in other words, they were in a different camp and the other side was winning. That means that at that point the Jews had already decided to reject Paul.

Great exposition of the meaning of Jealous. Not sure how this advances your argument. But um Kay.

So what I am saying here is that the Jews' jealousy was a motivation for the Jews to persecute Paul, but not a motivation for the Jews to reject Paul's teaching. The rejecting came first, then when they saw others didn't side with them they became jealous and began persecuting Paul and the Gospel he was preaching.

And why is this important? Because now we can get back to the question in the OP: "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?" We know it wasn't jealousy. What was it then?

Sure it does. The Jews had the scriptures and knew what to look for but their tradition told them to expect something else. So yes. It was jealousy as the text clearly states. Unless you want argue jealous doesn't mean jealous. Which if so you problem isn’t with SS it’s with the very words of scripture. Which last time I checked Rome still teaches authoritative.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

But those from Thessalonika sure understood and practiced Sola Scriptura.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Church Militant is a good Catholic news source to help sort out the current state of Catholic leadership.

If it's your only source it's not so good. National Catholic Register is actually better. And if Twitter is your thing, following Edward Pentin and Damian Thompson is pretty good too. And BigPulpit.com is a decent news aggregator for Catholic news.

 

[Halbhh]

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?

Notice that verse that stands out so sharply in the passage:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

They did not merely accept whatever Paul said without checking scripture, but instead they read scripture to test what Paul said.

It's such a surprising thing -- even with the great evangelist Paul, still there were some wise enough to test his words against God's words that they already had.... This verse always stood out any time I read through this chapter, surprising, and comes to mind at times unbidden. It's one of perhaps 20 or 30 verses from Acts that are the most memorable.

It's not all the way up to this next one, to this level, words of eternal life, but it reminds us of these words --

Matthew 4:4 But Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

 

[thecolorsblend]

Notice that verse that stands out so sharply in the passage:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

They did not merely accept whatever Paul said without checking scripture, but instead they read scripture to test what Paul said.

It's such a surprising thing -- even with the great evangelist Paul, still there were some wise enough to test his words against God's words that they already had.... This verse always stood out any time I read through this chapter, surprising, and comes to mind at times unbidden. It's one of perhaps 20 or 30 verses from Acts that are the most memorable.

It's not all the way up to this next one, to this level, but reminds us of this greater verse --

Matthew 4:4 But Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

So, it's all a matter of perspective. The message the Bereans received was St. Paul's oral testimony, which they discovered harmonized perfectly with Sacred Scripture. That is the Magisterium; it is literally not "sola scriptura".

 

[Tradidi]

Notice that verse that stands out so sharply in the passage:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

They did not merely accept whatever Paul said without checking scripture, but instead they read scripture to test what Paul said.

It's such a surprising thing -- even with the great evangelist Paul, still there were some wise enough to test his words against God's words that they already had.... This verse always stood out any time I read through this chapter, surprising, and comes to mind at times unbidden. It's one of perhaps 20 or 30 verses from Acts that are the most memorable.

It's not all the way up to this next one, to this level, words of eternal life, but it reminds us of these words --

Matthew 4:4 But Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

The same words stand out a few verses before that for someone wearing Catholic glasses:

"And for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures" Acts 17:2

So why did they end up rejecting the Gospel if their Rule of Faith was Sola Scriptura? They used the same Scriptures, didn't they? They heard the same gospel, didn't they? They got it wrong in the end, didn't they? Why? If they used the same Rule of Faith, why did they end up with a different result? And if they did, is it possible Christians today who use the same Rule of Faith can get it wrong too?

 

[redleghunter]

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?

God’s call.


2 Timothy 1:10
He has saved us and called us to a holy life — not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

 

[Tradidi]

God’s call.


2 Timothy 1:10
He has saved us and called us to a holy life — not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Are you saying God called the Bereans but didn't call the Thessalonians?

 

[redleghunter]

Are you saying God called the Bereans but didn't call the Thessalonians?

There were called in both locations.

 

[Tradidi]

There were called in both locations.

You're dodging the question. Are you saying that those who rejected the Gospel did so because they were not called by God?

 

[redleghunter]

You're dodging the question. Are you saying that those who rejected the Gospel did so because they were not called by God?

That was not your question. You just asked another one. So the answer to the new question is absolutely yes.

 

[Tradidi]

That was not your question. You just asked another one. So the answer to the new question is absolutely yes.

Predestination? Thanks for your opinion, but no thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

Predestination? Thanks for your opinion, but no thanks.

Don’t kick the goads on this one:

Acts 13: NASB

44The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord. 45But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. 46Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

47“For so the Lord has commanded us,
‘I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THEGENTILES,
THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.’”

48When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region.​

 

[redleghunter]

So what I am saying here is that the Jews' jealousy was a motivation for the Jews to persecute Paul, but not a motivation for the Jews to reject Paul's teaching.

What’s the difference?

 

[redleghunter]

And why is this important? Because now we can get back to the question in the OP: "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?" We know it wasn't jealousy. What was it then?

Not all the Thessalonians rejected the Gospel. We also see the Bereans did not all accept it. So your premise is false.

 

[Halbhh]

The same words stand out a few verses before that for someone wearing Catholic glasses:

"And for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures" Acts 17:2

So why did they end up rejecting the Gospel if their Rule of Faith was Sola Scriptura? They used the same Scriptures, didn't they? They heard the same gospel, didn't they? They got it wrong in the end, didn't they? Why? If they used the same Rule of Faith, why did they end up with a different result? And if they did, is it possible Christians today who use the same Rule of Faith can get it wrong too?

When we ask why some in Thessalonian were "jealous" -- of influence we'd expect, just as the Pharisees seemed jealous of Christ's influence previously -- we only have in these verses just this one explanation for that difference (jealousy for power vs lack of jealousy for power):

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

So, it seems those valuing the scriptures enough were not jealous for influence/power.

It makes sense -- they valued God's words -- ergo, they were closer to God.

Because they were closer to God, they were far more concerned about His ways and values than human ones.

Therefore they were not concerned about power and influence of their own -- not wanting to be the great teacher themselves, because they trusted the true great Teacher. Instead of their own messages, they valued God's messages more.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Both of them were Jews, [...] both of them "searched the Scriptures"

No, it is not said that the Thessalonians searched the Scriptures. You read it into the text. But the text suggests, that in Thessalonike, the Jews rejected the messages because they didn't check it with the Scriptures, but rather judged on their traditions and prejudices. The Bereans were better, for they searched the Scriptures, i.e. they didn't gulp everything that was told them by the Apostles, but searched the Scripture if it was correct.

That's the difference.

Am I really the first one who saw this twisting of arguments?

EDIT: I was too careless to use words that imply intentional twist.

As to the disputed sense of "jealousy":

On the one hand, it is about the God-fearers, i.e. gentiles who did not convert to Judaism, but attended the assembly (synagoge, in Greek) and to some degree lived according to the teaching they heard (the term is somewhat diffuse, with a broad range of meaning in antique texts, therefore the description is imprecise on purpose). Those people were like a fender, they could mediate when a conflict with heathen, or a anti-Semitic feeling endangered the assembly. Seeing that many of these God-fearers now were closer to Paul and Barnabas than the synagogue society made those "jealous" who did not accept the teaching of the Apostles.

On the other hand, the word for getting zelous in Greek (ζηλόω zeloo) has the by-tone of radical, fanatic. Compare the English word zelot, coined from the accompanying adjective or noun. The fanaticism was very probably enlarged by the fear that the synagogue could lose the inherent protection given by the group of God-fearers. But in its core lies the fanaticism Paul had shown prior to his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road.

EDIT: Typos etc.

 

[Tradidi]

No, it is not said that the Thessalonians searched the Scriptures. You read it into the text. But the text suggests, that in Thessalonike, the Jews rejected the messages because they didn't check it with the Scriptures, but rather judged on their traditions and prejudices. The Bereans were better, for they searched the Scriptures, i.e. they didn't gulp everything that was told them by the Apostles, but searched the Scripture if it was correct.

That's the difference.

Am I really the first one who saw this twisting of arguments?

As to the disputed sense of "jealousy":

On the one hand, it is about the God-fearers, i.e. gentiles who did not convert to Judaism, but attended the assembly (synagoge, in Greek) and to some degree lived according to the teaching they heard (the term is somewhat diffuse, with a broad range of meaning in antique texts, therefore the description is imprecise on purpose). Those people were like a fender, they could mediate when a conflict with heathen, or a anti-Semitic feeling endangered the assembly. Seeing that many of these God-fearers now were closer to Paul and Barnabas than the synagogue society made those "jealous" who did not accept the teaching of the Apostles.

On the other hand, the word for getting zelous in Greek (ζηλόω zeloo) has the by-tone of radical, fanatic. Compare the English word zelot, coined from the accompanying adjective or noun. The fanaticism was very probably enlarged by the fear that the synagogue could lose the inherent protection given by the group of God-fearers. But in its core lies the fanaticism Paul had shown prior to his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road.

EDIT: Typos etc.

Acts 17:2 — "And for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures"

Please explain how one can "reason out of the Scriptures" without "searching the Scriptures"?

By the way, a more charitable way would have been to say that I "misunderstand" my own question, rather than "twist" the arguments.