St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[MoreCoffee]

my point was that since the Old Testament was needed to verify the new teachings

That is not what Acts 17 says. It says that the Jews in Beroea "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they studied the scriptures to check whether it was true." It is patently obvious that the scriptures did not tell them about the teaching of Christ. What they were able to check was the old testament prophecies that saint Paul linked to Jesus. They could verify that saint Paul quoted accurately and did not mislead them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

search the scripture of both old and new to ascertain truth rather than believing w/o evidence or worse yet to not know what the bible as a whole is saying.

I read the holy scriptures for all sorts of reasons and chief among them is to listen to God as he speaks in them. But I do not search through the bible to find this and that verse or fragment of a verse to construct a doctrine. Doctrine ought to be arrived at by the whole Church and debated until the whole Church is convinced that it is right and true. The idea of bible study to create doctrine all by one's self would have been abhorrent to the early magisterial protestant reformers. It may be a norm among some evangelical and independent groups but it is not what any of the ancient Churches teach nor - as far as I can tell - is it what the major and older Protestant denominations teach.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to fragment parts of my post into 4 posts to answer my 1 post when you can do it in one? I'm not going to even honor that jibberish with a reply. Too much work.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Whoa! There's the problem. You don't think the prophets wrote about Jesus.

You don't know your Justin Martyr for example. Here's a couple of his comments:

“Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses.

Or:

“What I mean is this. Jesus (Joshua), as I have now frequently remarked, who was called Oshea, when he was sent to spy out the land of Canaan, was named by Moses Jesus (Joshua). Why he did this you neither ask, nor are at a loss about it, nor make strict inquiries. Therefore Christ has escaped your notice; and though you read, you understand not; and even now, though you hear that Jesus is our Christ, you consider not that the name was bestowed on Him not purposelessly nor by chance.

Romans 16:26
But has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—
Romans 15:4
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Paul obviously relied on scripture (prophesies) for his instructions into all things of God, with the focus being on Christ and Him crucified. It's verified again in the quote of all scripture is God breathed and written for our instruction.
ETA:
Romans 1:1-32
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, ...
Acts 24:14
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,
Acts 17:2
And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

 

[Standing Up]

The point is this. Saint Paul preached a message that was not in holy scripture. He preached Christ and the new testament was not yet written. Acts 17 is not a testimony to SS no matter how hard one tries to force it to be.

Many of us understand that RC preaches messages not in holy scripture. That has nothing to do with the point.

 

[Standing Up]

The prophets wrote about the messiah and the Lord Jesus Christ is that messiah but the prophets never named the Messiah by the name Jesus. If you think that they did then show us the passage in the old testament that names the messiah as Jesus.

Come out of parochialism. Did you skip your Justin Martyr? Here's more info for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, interesting verse; many people use it while often disagreeing, on the meaning of Scripture, with others likewise using it. And one significant point is that, independent of Scripture there existed, at that time, a new body of beliefs, held and professed by this new church made up of Jesus's disciples, based on the revelation He had given them. These beliefs didn't come from Scripture, rather they were held in common by a group of people, and were checked against Scripture. While the OT writings were considered to be the standard by which to test the veracity of these new teachings and claims, these teachings and claims had an existence apart from any written source until later when writings were penned by disciples and associates and later yet assembled into the canon we know as the New Testament. In any case the church continued to hold, teach, and practice this new faith which the Bereans were looking into before and after anything was written about it.

Beautiful understanding of SS for the OT. Now all you have to do is apply the same concept to us in the NT. Keep in mind the written "built on foundation of prophets (that you understand) and apostles (that you might understand).

The apostles had the OT and preached the NT. The NT checked against the OT. We now may check opinions against the NT.

PS. Your "objection" about interpretation has nothing to do with SS. It is simply, to boil it down, "checking claims against Scripture".

 

[Standing Up]

Pure speculation and supposition. You may think it was so but you need more than your hunches and speculations to establish it as true.

Not at all. It is written by Paul himself.

 

[Standing Up]

They (meaning the Jews of Beroea) used the old testament to check what Paul said about the old testament passages that pointed to messiah.

Perfect. They used scripture as the authority. IOW, Paul wasn't the authority. Tradition wasn't the authority. Rather, as you admit, it was the written scripture.

So, we're in agreement that in the time of Acts, they used SS to test the claims.

 

[fhansen]

Beautiful understanding of SS for the OT. Now all you have to do is apply the same concept to us in the NT. Keep in mind the written "built on foundation of prophets (that you understand) and apostles (that you might understand).

The apostles had the OT and preached the NT. The NT checked against the OT. We now may check opinions against the NT.

PS. Your "objection" about interpretation has nothing to do with SS. It is simply, to boil it down, "checking claims against Scripture".

The problem is that differing interpretations of Scripture already means different norms with which to check any given belief or truth claim against. This is why Philip, already in possession of the truth because it had been relayed to him by the church and understood as one called out by God for the purpose of handing it on, was able to grant understanding to the Eunuch, who failed to understand Scripture without the light Phillip was able to shed on it. This is the role of the church.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The problem is that differing interpretations of Scripture already means different norms with which to check any given belief or truth claim against. This is why Philip, already in possession of the truth because it had been relayed to him by the church and understood as one called out by God for the purpose of handing it on, was able to grant understanding to the Eunuch, who failed to understand Scripture without the light Phillip was able to shed on it. This is the role of the church.

It's the role of the Holy Spirit in a person to communicate life to an individual. No amount of preaching from the church will effect anything w/o the anointing upon the person giving the message. While Philip was most likely in possession of the truth because of association with those who were of the new church that is not what gave him the ability or the understanding. The light came from the Holy Spirit, and thru the rebirth that came from hearing the word of God. The role of the church is to communicate truth, but if the one giving the message does not have the HS they can in no way communicate life.
Acts 8:29
And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.”
John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That is not what Acts 17 says. It says that the Jews in Beroea "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they studied the scriptures to check whether it was true." It is patently obvious that the scriptures did not tell them about the teaching of Christ.
What they were able to check was the old testament prophecies that saint Paul linked to Jesus. They could verify that saint Paul quoted accurately and did not mislead them.

I like the Bereans. I could have been one of them ehehe:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/acts-17-11-greek-verse-study-only.7585054/
Acts 17:11 greek verse study only

QUOTE "LittleLambofJesus"
This is not a debate thread concerning solo/sola scriptura as in this other thread.
What I would like to do is simply study this verse as it appears in the greek. so please do not derail to any other topic other than this 1 verse [at least for now ]Thanks

The greek word #4288 is interesting and only used 1 time in Acts and the rest in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.
According to the lexicon it uses the root word #2372, which is used as "fury/wrath" in most places of the NT [expecially in Revelation].

ISA) Acts 17:11
These yet were more well-generated of the ones in Thessalonica, who-any receive the word with all passion/readines/pro-qumiaV <4288> the according to day,
examining the Writings if it may be having these thusly.

Textus Rec.) Acts 17:11 outoi de hsan eugenesteroi twn en qessalonikh oitineV edexanto ton logon meta pashV proqumiaV to kaq hmeran anakrinonteV taV grafaV ei ecoi tauta outwV

Strong's Number G4288 matches the Greek (prothymia), which occurs 6 times in 5 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV
Page 1 / 1 (Act 17:11 - 2Cr 9:2)

4288. prothumia proth-oo-mee'-ah from 4289; predisposition, i.e. alacrity:--forwardness of mind, readiness (of mind), ready (willing) mind.
4253. pro pro a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to:--above, ago, before, or ever.
2372. thumos thoo-mos' from 2380; passion (as if breathing hard):--fierceness, indignation, wrath. Compare 5590.

Peter sure felt that Paul was an inspired writer in the NT:

2Peter 3:16
As also in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are difficult to understand any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rest of Writings,
toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [# 684 used reve 17:8, 11]


...............................................

 

[BobRyan]

Acts17:[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] 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.

Sola Scriptura is simply searching the scriptures to see if whatever you hear from wherever is true (within context). This passage also shows how the NT gospel Paul was telling them could be verified by the types & shadows as well as the prophecies in the OT scriptures.

And of course - Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles0 or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - ... let him be accursed"

Clearly a "sola scriptura" endorsement by Paul.

 

[fhansen]

It's the role of the Holy Spirit in a person to communicate life to an individual. No amount of preaching from the church will effect anything w/o the anointing upon the person giving the message. While Philip was most likely in possession of the truth because of association with those who were of the new church that is not what gave him the ability or the understanding. The light came from the Holy Spirit, and thru the rebirth that came from hearing the word of God. The role of the church is to communicate truth, but if the one giving the message does not have the HS they can in no way communicate life.
Acts 8:29
And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.”
John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Certainly wouldn't -and didn't- disagree with that, which was my meaning in saying he was "called out". But even then, yes, the association with God's church was an important part of it all-we aren't meant to be lone rangers. Phillip heard the word conveyed to him at some point, and was changed by it. He passed it on.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Many of us understand that RC preaches messages not in holy scripture. That has nothing to do with the point.

another "meh". If you keep ignoring the holy scriptures in my posts you'll end up with an entirely ignored bible before long.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Come out of parochialism. Did you skip your Justin Martyr? Here's more info for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

Saint Justin the martyr isn't an author of holy scripture. So "meh" for this one too.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perfect. They used scripture as the authority. IOW, Paul wasn't the authority. Tradition wasn't the authority. Rather, as you admit, it was the written scripture.

So, we're in agreement that in the time of Acts, they used SS to test the claims.

They (the Jews in Beroea) were Jews not Christians so if they chose to read the old testament to test the gospel I say "meh what's new?" that they were commended for not ridiculing saint Paul and chasing him out of town is noted in the passage but those among them who rejected the gospel were every bit as reprehensible as any other group that rejects the gospel preferring their own opinions over it.

I've counted five responses from you today and not one of them offers any holy scripture passage that teaches SS but you try mocking my comments (which is quite remniscient of the hostility shown to saint Paul by some of the Jews in Thessalonica) of course I do not compare posts in CF to saint Paul's preaching but it is notable how attitudes to holy scripture (such as the sermon on the mount from which I quoted at length and Acts 17 from which I also quoted at some length) haven't changed if the passages unsettle one's favoured doctrines.

 

[Standing Up]

The problem is that differing interpretations of Scripture already means different norms with which to check any given belief or truth claim against. This is why Philip, already in possession of the truth because it had been relayed to him by the church and understood as one called out by God for the purpose of handing it on, was able to grant understanding to the Eunuch, who failed to understand Scripture without the light Phillip was able to shed on it. This is the role of the church.

SS doesn't pretend to solve the problem of whose interpretation will one believe. It merely states the authority under which interpretation will succumb.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

The point you agreed to was the Bereans searched scripture. The Eunuch was reading scripture. Philip read/explained scripture to him. In no case is the magisterium (chair of Peter so-called) invoked, nor is tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

Saint Justin the martyr isn't an author of holy scripture. So "meh" for this one too.

Jesus is in the OT. You simply failed to know it.

 

[Standing Up]

They (the Jews in Beroea) were Jews not Christians so if they chose to read the old testament to test the gospel I say "meh what's new?" that they were commended for not ridiculing saint Paul and chasing him out of town is noted in the passage but those among them who rejected the gospel were every bit as reprehensible as any other group that rejects the gospel preferring their own opinions over it.

So, you're invoking a double standard excuse. What was good enough for Christ, a Jew, isn't good enough for a Christian.

I've counted five responses from you today and not one of them offers any holy scripture passage that teaches SS but you try mocking my comments (which is quite remniscient of the hostility shown to saint Paul by some of the Jews in Thessalonica) of course I do not compare posts in CF to saint Paul's preaching but it is notable how attitudes to holy scripture (such as the sermon on the mount from which I quoted at length and Acts 17 from which I also quoted at some length) haven't changed if the passages unsettle one's favoured doctrines.

Hello? You haven't answered post #1875.