Bereans

[Trekson]

I like what this guy has to say about Bereans. May we all strive to imitate them.

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

Commentator Matthew Henry writes, regarding the Bereans:​

They had a freer thought, and lay more open to conviction, were willing to hear reason, and admit the force of it, and to subscribe to that which appeared to them to be truth, though it was contrary to their former sentiments. This was more noble.​

They had a better temper, were not so sour, and morose, and ill conditioned towards all that were not of their mind. As they were ready to come into a unity with those that by the power of truth they were brought to concur with, so they continued in charity with those that they saw cause to differ from. This was more noble. They neither prejudged the cause, nor were moved with envy at the managers of it, as the Jews at Thessalonica were, but very generously gave both it and them a fair hearing, without passion or partiality. (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 2141)​

Read more: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/2643/Prothumos.htm#ixzz27v7UcPxe[/background]​

 

[epostle1]

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone . Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

Furthermore, the Bereans were GREEK speaking Jews, and had been using the Greek Deuterocanonical books for 200 years before Christ.

Lastly, the Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

 

[us2are1]

All Bereans are not that way but there are those of all persuasions That are searching for truth and willing to lay down the darkness when the Light shines.

.

 

[Nomad]

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah.

Yes, this is sola scriptura in action, which is the principle that the scriptures are the final court of appeal and the only infallible rule of faith. Anything that goes beyond the scriptures or contradicts them is to be rejected.

The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone .

Really? What else did they search? What other authoritative source did they have at their disposal? Where does Acts 17 mention this other source?

Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

No, it does not say that they believed without question Paul's oral teaching as God's word before searching the scriptures. It says they "received" the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. The verse says explicitly that they took what they heard to the scriptures to see if what they heard was true. Big, big, difference. Verse 12 goes on to say that many of them "believed" as a result of searching the scriptures. Again, sola scriptura.

Notice carefully the word "therefore" in verse 12

Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Act 17:12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

 

[epostle1]

Yes, this is sola scriptura in action, which is the principle that the scriptures are the final court of appeal and the only infallible rule of faith. Anything that goes beyond the scriptures or contradicts them is to be rejected.

Really? What else did they search? What other authoritative source did they have at their disposal? Where does Acts 17 mention this other source?[[quote}
They received Paul's oral preaching as an authoritative source.

No, it does not say that they believed without question Paul's oral teaching as God's word before searching the scriptures. It says they "received" the word with all eagerness,

What's the difference?

examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

They examined the scriptures daily to see if Paul's oral preaching that they received with eagerness was so. I get it.

The verse says explicitly that they took what they heard to the scriptures to see if what they heard was true. Big, big, difference. Verse 12 goes on to say that many of them "believed" as a result of searching the scriptures. Again, sola scriptura.

Paul's oral preaching was accepted as true, and they searched the scriptures to support Paul's oral preaching. Isn't that what you do when you accept a sermon with eagerness?

Notice carefully the word "therefore" in verse 12

Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Act 17:12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

It doesn't say many of them therefore believed by scripture alone, it says many of them believed because of Paul's oral preaching together with the scriptures. It's both/and. "and/or" is a typical Protestant false dichotomy, a mistake you made with your selective Greek grammar rules regarding "kecharitomene".

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. . . .
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."​

he Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. . . .

Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.

By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed.

They were commended for being open-minded and receiving Paul's message as quite possibly true. They consulted the Scriptures to confirm Paul's teaching. The Bereans were, remember, still Jews (i.e., followers of Judaism, not Christianity) at the time. If someone had first encountered Paul, they wouldn't necessarily immediately know he was an apostle.

But searching the Scripture to confirm or defend some doctrine is not the same thing as sola Scriptura. The latter means making the Bible the only infallible authority. The mainstream tradition of the Jews at that time (in all likelihood including the Bereans) was Pharisaism, and it accepted oral tradition and an oral Torah received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, in addition to the written Torah. This in and of itself is fundamentally hostile to sola Scriptura. The ones who held to a strict Bible Alone view were the Saduccees, who accepted the Torah (first five books) only. But they denied the resurrection of the righteous in the afterlife.​

more here> source​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJskrQq3dXM​

 

[Nomad]

Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.

Once again, we see Roman Catholic Biblical blindness in action. Peter, along with Paul and Barnabas, made an appeal, not a determination at the Jerusalem Council. James made the determination. Scripture is clear.

Act 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me.
Act 15:14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
Act 15:16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,
Act 15:17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things
Act 15:18 known from of old.'
Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God...

 

[neophyte]

Once again, we see Roman Catholic Biblical blindness in action. Peter, along with Paul and Barnabas, made an appeal, not a determination at the Jerusalem Council. James made the determination. Scripture is clear.

Act 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me.
Act 15:14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
Act 15:16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,
Act 15:17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things
Act 15:18 known from of old.'
Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God...

sorry, my mistake

sorry, my mistake

Here is the real deal, it explains it all-

Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church?

 

[Nomad]

Here's something that I posted here almost two years ago on this topic.

The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the following:

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar
of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”

Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”

St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”

 

[epostle1]

Acts 15 (KJV)
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Pope spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14 SIMEON HATH DECLARED how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Remember that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. It says that Peter deferred to him in making the statement of policy, not that Peter reported to him. This was protocol and common courtesy among leaders, and still is today.

When one leader visits another leader and they come to some decision on a matter of policy, it is always the hosting leader who makes the statement about the decision. This is done because the leader who is hosting the meeting is the legitimate authority in his own land. James made a local and temporary ruling, not a ruling binding on all Christians in all places, as did Peter's teachings.

Here's something that I posted here almost two years ago on this topic.

The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the following:

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar
of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”

Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”

St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter .aspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, "[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians." . . .


...At Trent it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . We find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. `Written' and `unwritten' indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.
source
Nolan's ECF quotes support material sufficiency, not formal sufficiency.

 

[Nomad]

Remember that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. It says that Peter deferred to him in making the statement of policy, not that Peter reported to him. This was protocol and common courtesy among leaders, and still is today.

Excuses, excuses. I find it amusing that a Roman Catholic would argue that the supposed first pope would defer to anyone. Such nonsense.

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Dr. White understands the distinction and so do I. Thanks for your concern. So here is your formal sufficiency:

2Ti 3:15 ...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Interesting! Paul considers the OT to be "formally sufficient" according to your definition. Notice, Paul does not mention any "outside information to interpret it." So much for your teaching magisterium.

 

[epostle1]

[/color]

Excuses, excuses. I find it amusing that a Roman Catholic would argue that the supposed first pope would defer to anyone. Such nonsense.

Dr. White understands the distinction and so do I. Thanks for your concern. So here is your formal sufficiency:

2Ti 3:15 ...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Interesting! Paul considers the OT to be "formally sufficient" according to your definition. Notice, Paul does not mention any "outside information to interpret it." So much for your teaching magisterium.

TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE!

2 Timothy 3:
[12] Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
[13] while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition) knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.

In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Deformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." 83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

(1) The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. 84

(2) The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction". 85

(3) The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. 86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

Footnotes:
83 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad I.
84 Cf. 1 Cor 10:2.
85 1 Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1-4:Heb 3:11.
86 Cf. Rev 21:1-22:5.
source

The so called reformers would have none of this. They leaned too heavily towards a literal approach and less allegorical. They followed the school of thought of every heresy in the patristic period. Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries FOR IGNORING 1 Tim 3:16 !!!

 

[Nomad]

TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE!

2 Timothy 3:
[12] Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
[13] while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition) knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.

In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Deformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." 83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

(1) The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. 84

(2) The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction". 85

(3) The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. 86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

Footnotes:
83 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad I.
84 Cf. 1 Cor 10:2.
85 1 Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1-4:Heb 3:11.
86 Cf. Rev 21:1-22:5.
source

The so called reformers would have none of this. They leaned too heavily towards a literal approach and less allegorical. They followed the school of thought of every heresy in the patristic period. Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries FOR IGNORING 1 Tim 3:16 !!!

Kepha, I think that it's apparent to all at this point that as soon as one of your challenges are met, you move the goal post. You're desperation and dishonesty are perfectly clear. What a sad display of nonsense.

 

[epostle1]

Kepha, I think that it's apparent to all at this point that as soon as one of your challenges are met, you move the goal post. You're desperation and dishonesty are perfectly clear. What a sad display of nonsense.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:




You jumped ship from your lame argument on the Bereans into ECF quotes that didn't prove anything. You were refuted on your abuse of Acts 15 with my summary that harmonized with neophyte's link. You had to get in a little dig about the Pope deferring to someone, which reveals the dominating dictator image typically held by many ignorant Protestants. You then fired the 1 Tim 3:15 gun which which backfired on you..... and I am desperate and dishonest....


...riiight.


Sola scriptura has no biblical foundation, the "unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine" is non-existent in any time period prior to the so called reformation, is illogical, unworkable, indefensible, and man made.

Now run along and get some more losing arguments from James White.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

You should also add, considering your culture, that the Bereans were not studying independently, but it would be their leaders studying and sharing with the people. The Jews were subservient to their teachers when it came to matters such as this. Which that matches Paul's words in Ephesians 4 that they were to be led by the Church.

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone . Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

Furthermore, the Bereans were GREEK speaking Jews, and had been using the Greek Deuterocanonical books for 200 years before Christ.

Lastly, the Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

Is this the Sola Scriptura Luther advocated, or what it turned into Post Luther. Martin would puke at the way the cliche is used today.

What makes me rofl is that if you adhere to sola scriptura you must NOT adhere to sola scriptura. Paul himself said to keep tradition and pass it on.

Now the way Luther looked at S.S. that is just fine. The way it's used today, doesn't float though.

Here's something that I posted here almost two years ago on this topic.

The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the following:

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar
of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”

Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”

St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”

Oh crap, 2x in one day. Agree again.

Once again, we see Roman Catholic Biblical blindness in action. Peter, along with Paul and Barnabas, made an appeal, not a determination at the Jerusalem Council. James made the determination. Scripture is clear.

Act 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me.
Act 15:14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
Act 15:16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,
Act 15:17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things
Act 15:18 known from of old.'
Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God...

 

[epostle1]

You should also add, considering your culture, that the Bereans were not studying independently, but it would be their leaders studying and sharing with the people. The Jews were subservient to their teachers when it came to matters such as this. Which that matches Paul's words in Ephesians 4 that they were to be led by the Church.


Is this the Sola Scriptura Luther advocated, or what it turned into Post Luther. Martin would puke at the way the cliche is used today.

What makes me rofl is that if you adhere to sola scriptura you must NOT adhere to sola scriptura. Paul himself said to keep tradition and pass it on.

Now the way Luther looked at S.S. that is just fine. The way it's used today, doesn't float though.


Oh crap, 2x in one day. Agree again.

Good point, XP. The Bereans followed Jewish Tradition as did all Jews (including Jesus and Paul) and why sola scripturists deny this fact may be attributed to the anti-semetism of their spiritual forefathers.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Good point, XP. The Bereans followed Jewish Tradition as did all Jews (including Jesus and Paul) and why sola scripturists deny this fact may be attributed to the anti-semetism of their spiritual forefathers.

I think its hubris not anti semitism. But who knows who can tell.

 

[joshhuntnm]

I attended a Mormon church once. Their advice was the opposite: never doubt what your elders tell you.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.....

 

[epostle1]

On this week's espisode of the Bible know-it-all show we learn that there is no heaven...next there will be no Hell,then no ressurection...be sure to tune in next week for the Bible Know-it-all show to find out what other parts of the Bible are not true.

:lol:

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Posted Today, 07:36 AM

Strat, on 09 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

On this week's espisode of the Bible know-it-all show we learn that there is no heaven...next there will be no Hell,then no ressurection...be sure to tune in next week for the Bible Know-it-all show to find out what other parts of the Bible are not true.

I wonder why I can't see that post, and why you support it with chuckles? That's like laughing at a Catholic Joke, or race joke....

This forum has an odd culture of holy huddlers.




For the record, scripture says you wait for the resurrection, not go to heaven.