St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Montalban]

I didn't miss that in fact that is what I referred to v5 - "But the Jews which believed not moved with envy" - you left out - "But the Jews which believed not". I do not see where that "found Paul wanting." Some chose to hear and believe; some did not.

If they didn't believe Paul, then they found the argument from scripture not convincing, or wanting, or lacking.

Take your pick.

It now seems your point is one of semantics that doesn't mean anything other than missing that Jews were not moved by Paul's sola scriptura argument (if he only used scripture)

Scripture would not have been enough to lead them to the truth.

 

[patience7]

If they didn't believe Paul, then they found the argument from scripture not convincing, or wanting, or lacking.

Take your pick.

It now seems your point is one of semantics that doesn't mean anything other than missing that Jews were not moved by Paul's sola scriptura argument (if he only used scripture)

Scripture would not have been enough to lead them to the truth.

Whether or not they believed Paul is not what mattered - they did not believe the scripture - It wasn't Paul's responsibility to force people to believe what was written - his responsiblity was to reason with them out of the scriptures. Some people will believe; some will not and there is no way to force people to be "moved" by scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Whether or not they believed Paul is not what mattered - they did not believe the scripture - It wasn't Paul's responsibility to force people to believe what was written - his responsiblity was to reason with them out of the scriptures. Some people will believe; some will not and there is no way to force people to be "moved" by scripture.

Right. They simply didn't believe God-breathed scripture.

Do people think people are more likely to believe tradition? Hmmm.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

1Cor.1

1. [18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Can't argue wit dat!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Montalban Acts 17:1-9

he reasoned with them from scriptures

Maybe he should have tried Tradition

It couldn't hurt

 

[Montalban]

Whether or not they believed Paul is not what mattered - they did not believe the scripture - It wasn't Paul's responsibility to force people to believe what was written - his responsiblity was to reason with them out of the scriptures. Some people will believe; some will not and there is no way to force people to be "moved" by scripture.

I am simply noting that an argument from scripture was not sufficient to prove to people the proof.

The argument is in effect "We should use scripture as the ultimate authority on what is true - let's look to an example from the NT where people did that - and ignore where it didn't prove anything!"

 

[Montalban]

It couldn't hurt

The basis for tradition was used in Acts 15 - as I demonstrated to StandingUp, and others here.

 

[Montalban]

Some are confused about the arguments made.

The argument isn't that tradition is more apparently true.

I used the example of the Thessalonians to debunk the use of the use of the Bereans!

The sola scripturists point to the Bereans to 'prove' sola scriptura - that is people using scripture, and turning to Christ.

I show that the Thessalonians did the same thing, and weren't wholly convinced.

The idea that sola scriptura leads to the truth is not always the case.

If however the argument is that simply people should only use scripture (or use scripture as the ultimate source of truth) REGARDLESS of the results then what would be the point.

It makes it a hollow "You should read the bible... because..."

AND that's not even taking into account that this 'sola scriptura' example both refers only to the OT, and ignores where Paul used tradition, or non-scriptural evidence (as I have cited).

 

[razeontherock]

Checked for what? Where did they check about the Holy Spirit being the 3rd person of the Trinity. Saying "Us or We" doesn't prove a thing. Saying 'Trust me' because I trust Peter's Writing as Scripture equally doesn't prove a thing. The point of this thread is that the Bereans were sola Scriptura men so everything needed to be in the OT to satisfy them. Now satisify me and show me where Paul taught the Holy Trinity from the OT to convince men who've never even concieved the thought that it was true.

I think it's awfully silly to pretend that Paul invented Trinity, first of all. Next up, it's just as silly to think that any of his substantial doctrines originated with him rather than the OT. If you're really in doubt about Trinity:

Isa 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us.
It's things like this that make the non-RC's think there's some truth to the rumors about RC's being taught not to read the Bible ... really basic stuff here!

 

[narnia59]

No matter which way you spin it, the Bereans are a poor example of sola-scriptura -- in fact, quite the opposite.

Yes, they searched the Scriptures looking at the OT prophecies.

But they also accepted Paul's oral teaching that the person of Jesus Christ:

1) Suffered, died and was buried
2) Rose from the dead

This is in fact, what differentiated them from the Thessalonians. If the Bereans had been sola-scripturists they would still be Jews. For nowhere in their Scripture does it tell them that the person of Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead. The OT Scriptures may prophesy of the event, but they do not testify to the event as a historical occurrence and of the specific person who fulfills the prophecies. They accept Jesus Christ is this person via the oral word of God as spoken by the apostles, not because they find it in Scripture. That plainly moves them outside of the boundaries of what is believed to be only that which is found in Scripture.

 

[razeontherock]

I disagree with that adamantly:

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

I think it means exactly what it says - Scripture itself testifies of JESUS. Also, the Bereans didn't need to rely on Paul's "oral tradition" that Jesus was crucified before Pilate. The Apostles weren't the only ones that knew this!

 

[narnia59]

I disagree with that adamantly:

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

I think it means exactly what it says - Scripture itself testifies of JESUS. Also, the Bereans didn't need to rely on Paul's "oral tradition" that Jesus was crucified before Pilate. The Apostles weren't the only ones that knew this!

The Bereans didn't have the book of John.

Yes, the OT Scriptures testify of a person to come who would do these things. But to know that the person of Jesus is who actually did them and fulfilled them? The Bereans accepted this by Paul's oral testimony, not Scripture.

The Bereans may well have heard of the crucified Jesus, but they had no personal witness to the resurrected Jesus -- they had no Scriptures that told them that the person of Jesus had resurrected from the dead -- this fundamental, most basis aspect of Christianity they accepted by the word of the apostles, not Scripture.

If they had limited what they believed to be true to what Scripture alone would tell them, as I said, they'd still be Jews, waiting for the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures.

 

[razeontherock]

The Bereans didn't have the book of John.

Irrelevant. The Truth is, OT speaks of JESUS. (Which is the point here)

Yes, the OT Scriptures testify of a person to come who would do these things. But to know that the person of Jesus is who actually did them and fulfilled them? The Bereans accepted this by Paul's oral testimony, not Scripture.

You may hold to that opinion if you wish, but Scripture says they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was so. That would be, you know ... the opposite of just accepting what Paul said

The Bereans may well have heard of the crucified Jesus, but they had no personal witness to the resurrected Jesus -- they had no Scriptures that told them that the person of Jesus had resurrected from the dead -- this fundamental, most basis aspect of Christianity they accepted by the word of the apostles, not Scripture.

If they had limited what they believed to be true to what Scripture alone would tell them, as I said, they'd still be Jews, waiting for the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures.

This is a perversion of 2 key concepts:

1) in no way does SS = "believing to be true to what Scripture alone would tell them" (I would refer you to California Josiah's very long thread on the subject re: "norms")

2) It is the Holy Spirit that testifies of Christ. It is also the Holy Spirit that illuminates Scripture

 

[mathetes123]

In order for what you say to be true (that “searched the scriptures daily” means the same thing as Sola Scriptura), you need to provide evidence that the texts Sola Scriptura refers to are the same texts that were being “searched” in Acts 17:11.

So by all means show us what scriptures those were that they were searching through in Acts 17:11. Did those scriptures include Baruch? 1 Enoch? The Community Rule? Herodotus? Plato? Esther? Were their scriptures Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? Latin? A combination? If a combination, which ones were which?

That would be the scriptures of the Old Testament that pointed to Jesus.

 

[narnia59]

Irrelevant. The Truth is, OT speaks of JESUS. (Which is the point here)



You may hold to that opinion if you wish, but Scripture says they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was so. That would be, you know ... the opposite of just accepting what Paul said



This is a perversion of 2 key concepts:

1) in no way does SS = "believing to be true to what Scripture alone would tell them" (I would refer you to California Josiah's very long thread on the subject re: "norms")

2) It is the Holy Spirit that testifies of Christ. It is also the Holy Spirit that illuminates Scripture

The OT Scriptures do speak of one to come... they do not identify that person as being Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. Hence, the majority of the Jews who received those Scriptures do not believe in him today.

So where did the Bereans find in the Scriptures they searched that the person, Jesus Christ, who was born in Bethlehem to Mary, who had Joseph as an accepted father by society, was really conceived in a virgin by the Holy Spirit and after he died he rose from the dead?

Sola (alone) Scriptural (Scriptures). SCRIPTURES ALONE. I've read CJ's posts many times. Suffice it to say that there are many definitions of sola-scriptura. Such as wiki's:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness

It is also spoken of as the "sufficiency" of scripture -- it contains everything one needs to know of salvation.

Were the scriptures the Bereans had 'sufficient'? Did they contain all they needed to know? If so, that means one does not need to 'know' that the person Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and rose from the dead at all. Nor did they need to accept Paul's oral testimony to the person of Christ.

If they did need to know these things about the person of Jesus Christ, that he, the person of Jesus fulfilled those Scriptures, and they accepted them by Paul's oral testimony, then they can in no way been seen as 'sola scripturists' -- for the scriptures they had were not sufficient to teach them all they needed to know for salvation.

The Holy Spirit does indeed do those things. He also guards the 'pillar and foundation' of the truth, less the church fall, and therefore Scripture along with it.

 

[OpenDoor]

If they didn't believe Paul, then they found the argument from scripture not convincing, or wanting, or lacking.

Take your pick.

It now seems your point is one of semantics that doesn't mean anything other than missing that Jews were not moved by Paul's sola scriptura argument (if he only used scripture)

Scripture would not have been enough to lead them to the truth.

Maybe this is where we will differ, but like others have said it was because they would not believe.

 

[razeontherock]

The OT Scriptures do speak of one to come... they do not identify that person as being Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem.

Here we disagree; I find they do. Pretty sure I'm in good company on that one, too.

So where did the Bereans find in the Scriptures they searched that the person, Jesus Christ, who was born in Bethlehem to Mary, who had Joseph as an accepted father by society, was really conceived in a virgin by the Holy Spirit and after he died he rose from the dead?

It breaks my heart that you apparently really don't know?!? I find that inconceivable! Obviously, it would take a lot more than just one post, or a forum such as this, to explore that. I highly recommend it!

 

[Montalban]

Maybe this is where we will differ, but like others have said it was because they would not believe.

You're removing a reason for why they didn't believe and just having that they didn't believe.

 

[Montalban]

I think it's awfully silly to pretend that Paul invented Trinity, first of all.

I'm not aware anyone made that claim

 

[katherine2001]

Here we disagree; I find they do. Pretty sure I'm in good company on that one, too.



It breaks my heart that you apparently really don't know?!? I find that inconceivable! Obviously, it would take a lot more than just one post, or a forum such as this, to explore that. I highly recommend it!

You didn't answer Narnia's question. How did the Bereans know from the OT Scriptures alone (which is all that they had) that Jesus Christ was the person that the OT talked about? If it is so obvious, it should be easy to lay out for her.