We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians!
Steve Ray (WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA)
A noble effort. I applaud it, because I have never heard it. I definitely take back my charge of you not being serious.
However, you have erred in Sola Scriptura's first rule of rightly dividing the Word of truth, by intermixing what you suppose and want to think with what is actually written.
1.
They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong.
Not written. This is an assumption based on what was later written about the Bereans. No Scripture says the unbelieving Jews of Thessaly ever did so.
For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say.
The only one Scripture says reasoned and judged out of the Scriptures is Paul. Nothing about the Thessalonian unbelieving Jews doing so.
They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah.
Not written. Another projection of the noble Bereans upon the ignobly unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica.
they listened and discussed.
No doubt. Even as them that Paul finally stopped bothering to preach to:
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Arguing with themselves among themselves without so much as a glance at Scripture.
2.
The 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.
Not written. And a false conclusion being based on what is not written.
The Berean's were of a
ready mind to hear Paul, and
willing to believe what he said as Word of God, but they did not do so until proving his words from Scripture as being so: Open minded? yes. Believe without Scripture? No.
Sola Scriptura is willing to hear and to trust the honesty of the speaker, but verifying by Scripture is necessary for faith in what they hear.
And so a sloppy and foolish manner of hearing: immediately believe what is spoken, which is then put upon the Bereans in order to make a conclusion about them: not being Sola Scriptura. Which is the exact opposite of what Scripture commended them for: Willingness to hear, but then proving by Scripture whether to believe and accept as from God.
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians
How do Bereans that did search the Scriptures, do so no less than Thessalonians that Scripture never says they searched??
The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.
As did the Bereans and as do we all, But when we go to Scripture for proof and see it plainly written, then our skepticism either becomes belief or unbelief based on Scriptural proof: Sola Scriptura.
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.
The beginning of Sola Scriptura is willingness to give a fair hearing. The conclusion of Sola Scriptura is to judge the hearing by Scripture as true of God or not.
Neither of which the unbelieving Thessalonian Jews did: If the noble mindedness is willingness to hear, then that was better than the Thessalonian unbelievers, who must have not. And neither does Scripture say they looked to Scripture to reject what Paul said from Scripture, being unwilling to hear him honestly in the first place.
4.
There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred
And that is why all Jewish communities were concluded in unbelief at the cross. And why all nona-Sola Scriptura communities are concluded in corrupted faith by non scriptural traditions and commandments of men.
5.
Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues.
Which things they taught to others, but did not do themselves, because they taught what was not written in Scripture by Moses and the prophets. What was written was easy to read and to do, but what was not written was made up and made heavy burdens upon men to bear. (Matthew 23:4). And them that preached it and did not do it themselves, likewise did not lift one finger to help others do it.
They were
supposed to be the people of the book of the law of Moses, but in reality they had a strong oral tradition, that they first made to 'accompany' Scripture, and then they held above Scripture, which was proven when they had Christ crucified for condemning their idolized oral traditions: He did so repeatedly by repeating Scripture to judge them.
God never said
in Scripture to have oral traditions to 'accompany' His Word, but rather He only commanded His people to read the Scriptures of the law and teach them:
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Num 16)
Nothing about 'accompanying' oral traditions.
These 'strong' oral traditions and teachings of Rabbi 'authority', were those that Jesus and Paul both condemned as traditions and commandments of men.
The Thessalonian unbelieving Jews did as their Judean counterparts: they judged both Jesus' and Paul's words of Scripture, by their own traditions, commandments, and law, which they then used to judge both Jesus and Paul as blasphemers to be crucified and stoned.
6.
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.
And so it is the Sola Scriptura people that reject God's Word, because they don't receive anything that is not written in nor supported by God's Word. They are the heretics that will not accept as God's authority whatever they are told to them according to scriptureless but 'blessed' oral traditions.
Apollos was mighty in the Scriptures of God, not strong in the traditions of men.
8.
Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective.
Scripture never says they searched the Scriptures, nor rejected Paul's words from Scripture, based on their 'scriptural perspective'.
Their unbelief was because they did not want to believe the Scriptures that Paul reasoned from, because Jesus as Christ did not conform to their strong traditions.
They were completely justified from their
traditionally-taught perspective to reject the Scriptures given by Jesus of Himself, and those given by Stephen, Paul, Apollos, etc...pertaining to Jesus as the Christ.
This is the companionship of unbelieving Jews in the Old Covenant and unbelieving Christians in the New Testament that reject sola Scriptura:
Because they love to hold to their own traditions more than Scripture, they are not 'completely unjustified' in rejecting
Scripture only for things of God.
9.
Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God.
Who are these protestants to decide what is of God by Scripture only, and not accept additional revelation of traditions? Dogs not chosen to be custodians of oracles of man's religion.
One man's treasured traditions are another man's rejected trash, and one man's heretical dogs are God's scriptural treasure in earthen vessels.
