Were the Bereans "Sola Scripturists"?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something is true when it conforms with Scripture; something is false when it contradicts Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point but your "swallow tradition" model is devastated "again" by the fact that those DOING the interpreting in this case are NON-CHRISTIANS. Check it out - Acts 17:11 it is a NON-CHRISTIAN group validating a CHRISTIAN Apostle!!

This is the ABSOLUTE WORST case - because it is right "here" if EVER there was an argument for saying "you are NOT qualified to judge an apostle" it is to a bunch of NON CHRISTIANS!!

And yet - in this most EXTREME example it is STILL the valid - approved - honored - reliable method!!

Case closed!

And this is EXACTLY who is VALIDATING Paul!!

Read the text!

This is the case that blows away every argument you have raised on this point.

Indeed - so you would "think" that a CHRISTIAN would be EVEN MORE qualified to VALIDATE the teaching/word of one claiming to be an Apostle- MORE Than a bunch of non-Christian non-believing Jews! Yet it is the METHOD of the NON-Believers that APPROVES and VALIDATES the Apostle. AND it is the Apostle in 2Cor 11 that FEARS for the Christians that they may indeed simply fall back to the method you recommend and "swallow the teaching" of anyone coming along and claiming to be an Apostle or someone with Bible authority!!

The fact that you would want to start a thread and highlight your greatest point of weakness -- (and with each post demonstrate it) is amazing to me.

I applaud you for going right after the most devastating case against your POV.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
But that is NOT the definition of "scripture" or "the WORD" or "The COMMANDMENT of God". In Mark 7 Christ condemns their "Tradition" their "paradosis".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The disciples were following a local carpenter and the Pharisees were a key part of the Magesterium of the ONE true CHURCH started by God (by Christ) at Sinai!!

This means that Christ was condemning THE magesterium!!

There was no other church to go to - and there was no other Bible, no other God, no other Gospel, no other Creator!

They had the RIGHT church but they were In ERROR! Their traditions were WRONG!

Read Mark 7 it is clear that the CHURCH had fallen off the track via its leaders and specifically in regard to its TRADITIONS!

The idea that "tradition could not possibly be in error" is totally foreign to scripture!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is not that false apostles are readily accepted even though they say they are false apostles. THEY ALL claim to be REAL!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact it has everything to do with it because it SHOWS the requirement to REJECT the teaching of false apostles.

HOW are you to KNOW??? Do false apostles come to your day and say "Hey I am FALSE APOSTLE and I would like you to listen to a story of mine"???

Your approach seems to be that we should BELIEVE the good ones but not the bad ones - but HOW could we KNOW one from the other unless we had a way to VALIDATE them.

So IF Paul is already VALIDATED via the Acts 17:11 fact of history that we SEE actually happening "TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" -- then we SEE how Paul was validated. If that SAME validation were NOT applied to the others who CLAIM Apostleship THEN they just might "swallow whatever they are told".

AND Paul says "HE FEARS" that such might be the case.

You seem to argue that "they know the REAL ones because those are the only ones they listen too".

It is a circular argument constructed for the sole purpose of avoiding the solution!

In Christ,

Bob

 

DT,

bmerr here. I was reading back over this thread, and I was hoping you could help me understand your position better. There are a couple of comments you made that caught my eye.

Let me start (I know I'm jumping in a little late) by saying that I do hold the position that Scripture (specifically the NT) is our sole authority today. It is the standard by which we must prove the many doctrines of men that clamor for our allegiance. It is the standard by which we will be judged at the final day (John 12:48).

Your comment about "help from the church" is interesting. Which church are you referring to?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

He isn't referring to the Church of Christ denomination and the creed of Cambellism, Bmerr.
DHK

 

The fact the the Gentiles did not have to be circumcized or keep the rest of the Law could be proven from the very fact that circumcision and other ceremonies were apart of that first covenant with Israel ONLY. The fact that this was a new covenant that did not center around the physical nation of Israel meant that circumcision was no longer binding.
Every thing the apostles taught could be verified from the OT, even if it was not as clear reading it not in in light of their teaching. Nothing contradicted or added anything completely foreign to the scriptures.

OH, to the contrary, they use "ORAL TRADITION" tactics identical to yours, only it is supposedly "handed down" from Moses! So now, we have two sets of "oral tradition", with Moses pitted against these apostles. It is understandable for the Jews to choose Moses over these new people coming up "1500 years later" (SOUND FAMILIAR? Wow! even the time span is roughly the same! ). With scripture removed as the sole authority, we now have no ground to stand on at all! People may still interpret the written word any which way they choose, but a bunch of conflicting traditions is far worse!

 

The fact that a NEW covenant "Not like the one I made with their fathers" would be brought in, wouls assume the possible abrogation of many of those practices.
Once again, specifics were taught by the Holy Spirit, but it was still nothing completely foreign to the earlier principles. But accoring to you, the apostles taught all of these other "details", such as candles, vestments, icons, spiritual presence in the bread instead of in the members of the body, etc. and consistently withheld them from their writings. Do you have an explanation of why they did this? Was it som secret society type of thing?
And while the apostles had the Holy Spirit, the Jews wouldn;t know that, unless they judged the spostles by the scriptures, and found them true. It was theiridea of "oral tradition from Moses" that biased them against this in the first place. Likewise, the Holy Spirit still operates in the Church; not inspiringnew scriptures, but convicting people when they go astray. The problems of interpretation you see are from people not letting Him guide them back into all truth. Once again; in favor of "tradition". But it is possible for some to let Him, and truth to be restored after centuries.

 

2Cor 11 SHOWS the need to test "APOSTLES" and PREDICTS false Apostles coming in and trying to get THEIR teachings swallowed.

Acts 17:11 shows the VALIDATION process EVEN for a TRUE Apostle.

Mark 7:8-12 shows HUMAN tradition EVEN at the HIGHEST LEVELS of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE church started by God at Sinai - IN CONFLICT with God's Word and being CONDEMNED for that conflict.

Gal 1:6-12 shows that NO RANK - (not APOSTLE and NOT ANGEL FROM HEAVEN) is exempt from the TEST!

Case closed!

In Christ,

Bob

 

By "foreign concept" I meant more in terms of new practices and ideas that had no grounding in scripture at all. Gentiles not being circumcised or keeping other laws was not new. They already were not keeping them, as it wasn't expected of them (unless they joined the nation under THAT covenant). The new covenant was not really gentiles joining Israel in its covenant, but a whole new covenant altogether (though it is sometimes expressed as something that sounds like that, as, for instance salvation being "opened up to the Gentiles").

But these issues would have drawn the same level of attention, controversy, and the need for correction, theological points and practical doctrinal reminders as anything else. Even moreso, because of their sheer novelty. Like in 1 Cor. we see Paul correcting the Church on Communion, because it was being done wrong. If it was attached to some whole mystic theology of some "real presence", beyond Paul's reiteration of Christ's own description of it as done in remembrance in order to show (not reenact) Christ's death, then it definitely would have continued to raise more dissension and apostate view (just as the Jews who misunderstood and were offended at it in John 6), and would have received more detailed attantion from Paul. All of the other "liturgical" practices as well. To say that these issues were consistently skipped over, yet carried the same weight as the written teachigns is to create a secret code of "deep things" (as in Rev.2:24), which is generally condemned in the NT. (Eph.5:12)
Now, in this same chapter of 1 Cor.11; we see Paul mention "the ordinances I have delivered unto you". Rather than assuming this is candles, vestments and icons, we look at the following verses where he reiterates what he was referring to, and we see they were quite familiar teachings!

I know it could hypothetically be both, but the church in practice didn't really seem to hold both. The Church's teaching was clearly more focused on the physical elements than on the people. (I don't know about the EOC, but Rome even stopped giving the people the wine). What happned is that it was one or the other, and the church simply transferred it from one to the other!

Unless you consider that both the EOC and RCC were still changing in those first few centuries, and neither is identical today to the early CChurch. --unless you propose that they were in fact identical, and the teachings were continued to be kept secret and withheld from history.

 

A - This is a circular argument on your part!! Paul does not say "do not listen to FALSE apostles that CLAIM to be FALSE apostles"!!

Obviously.

Paul is "vetted" by NON-Believers in the example seen in Acts 17:11. That SAME process would REVEAL a false Apostle.

The STRENGTH of a false Apostle is that they DON'T TELL you that is what they are!!

(unbelievably obvious)

next.

Again you seem to fear the text rather than embracing it.

It does not say "it just so happened that what Paul said is actually in scripture" as you seem to hope!

Rather they were checking him out to "SEE IF" those things spoken to them by Paul "WERE SO".

That is VERY different from "Well as it turned out - in this case - what they were hearing happened to be supportable from scripture"!!

The facts of the text seem to obliterate the spin you need to place on them.

Next.

Here again is nother argument that is grossly in error.

Hebrews 8 SHOWS how the New Covenant is argued FROM the OT text that they all viewed as "scripture".

What in the world are you saying about the New Covenant?

Is it your position that the VERY texts used to SHOW the Jesus IS the Messiah - are PROOF that the Bible could not be trusted to tell the truth about the Messiah such that IT would confirm that JESUS was the MEssiah???!!

What kind of self-conflicted argument are you using now??

Next.

Yes - they were in fact humans no question about it.

And the tradition of humans can not taken IN PLACE OF the Word of God!!

Christ does not argue "IF you had found a HUMAN with MORE authority than the HIGHEST authority within the ONE TRUE CHURCH -- THEN these erroneous doctrines derived from tradition would be OK".

Next.

Again this is misdirection.

I have never argued that by finding one tradition to be in error - ALL tradition is in error.

I am arguing that ALL tradition must be TESTED as Christ SHOWED in Mark 7 with the TEST that their tradition flunked.

Notice Christ did NOT say "you got your tradition from a man of too low of rank within the ONE TRUE CHURCH God started at sinai".

That is NOT the error he charges them with!

RAther He claims that the act of taking HUMAN ideas in place of GOD's WORD (no matter WHERE those human ideas came from) is "error".

It is WRONG to take the traditions of humans and "Teach them as doctrine" when in fact they contradict God's Word!

next.

Paul makes the OPPOSITE point in 2Cor 11 regarding tradition coming from Apostles!!

He argues that IT MUST BE TESTED since one can not merely ASSUME the Apostle is rightly motivated or inspired!!

Case closed!!

In Christ,

bob

 

If the Bereans were SS-adherents, how come they reached different conclusions about Jesus than the Jews who also had the same Scriptures?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The Jews were unsaved rebellious individuals who rejected Christ as their Messiah, and with wicked hands took Him and crucified Him.

The Bereans compared what Paul had said with an open mind to the Scripture. Unlike the Jews they had not determined in their minds to reject Christ. They were willing and glad to hear what Paul had said. Only they did the right thing. They checked what he had to say by the Scriptures. When they found out that it was true, they believed, and trusted Him as Saviour. John 1:11,12 explains it well:

John 1:11-12 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (The unbelieving Jews)

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Both the Gentiles and the believing Jews)
DHK

 

Because THEY were Jews and Gentiles (NON Christians) that actually USED Scripture (SOLA SCRIPTURA TESTING) to "SEE IF the things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

The Acts 17 text does NOT Say that this was the method used by the "traditionalist Jews" that rejected Paul. THEY were much more inclined to value corrupt traditions of the religious leaders and "False apostles" above the pure Gospel teaching that IS validated "sola scriptura".

But if BOTH of those methods lead to the SAME conclusion THEN (and only then) you might have a point!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Let's not forget; the Jews added "oral tradition handed down from Moses", so rather than they being "sola scripturists", they held a view more like the catholists here, and the question really is; why did they come to different conclusions from the catholists?

But the people "just having to take the apostles' word about it" was not the point. When they searched the scriptures to test what they taught, it obviously went together in a reasonable way. There were no practices that were completely foreign to the scripture; else, they would have questioned the spostles from the scriptures, or concluded "well, it's not in the scriptures, but these apostles say it's so, so we just have to take their word for it regardless of what the written word says". Gentiles not apart of the OLD covenant not having to be circumcized and keep the other laws is something they could see existed in the scriptures, for instance. For gentiles not joining the nation were never expected by God to be circumcized. That was only for the people of THAT covenent. (Once again, they all knew they were not coming into that Old covenant).

So none of this is granting license for teachings to not need any scriptural support.

So there were controversies on every other doctrinal, practical and moral issue; buit they were THAT unanimous on the high liturgy, and there were NO misunderstandings at all ANYWHERE on them, until the docetists and gnostics. (John warned of the gnostics' doctrines creeping in then, and they were issues we can see addressed)

All images were STRICTLY forbidden by the Jews (even if not religious) so any "synagogue" having them was obviously some aberrant sect, and definitely a novelty for the people of faith! Yes, it's THESE influences that eventually gained influence in the Church, and then were projected back to the Apostles!

And notice, the "unworthy manner" was not "not having all your sins confessed", and all the other assumptions both Catholist and Protestant alike make. It was certainly not something like DROPPING it accidentally, with liturical churches trating the elements like it actually was the body of baby Jeesus or something. It was gluttony, which means, among other things, that this was not some special little crackers or wafers and tiny vials of wine, but a MEAL, and gathering to eat was a very important part of spiritual fellowship, hence "participation in" the body (even in the world, dinners and banquets are the centers or even mark special occasion!) So such gluttony would be seen as such a serious offense to the BODY of the Lord.

But your church is making itself a sort of "spiritual elite". We claim that all one has to do is receive Christ to be in the Church universal, but you say "no, because you are all in these numerous conflicting 'schisms' (organizations founded on lesser doctrines), and not baptized into the "true church", which has the apostles's [secret] tradition not written down by them, but which only we have preserved handed down from them". I'm sorry, but that is a type of elitism.

But then that becomes pure speculation. So we are just to take the word of the oldest organization on what they were, as if that organization couldn't have gotten them wrong or even deliberately twist things themselves.

 

The Jews were unsaved rebellious individuals who rejected Christ as their Messiah, and with wicked hands took Him and crucified Him.

The Bereans compared what Paul had said with an open mind to the Scripture. Unlike the Jews they had not determined in their minds to reject Christ. They were willing and glad to hear what Paul had said. Only they did the right thing. They checked what he had to say by the Scriptures. When they found out that it was true, they believed, and trusted Him as Saviour. John 1:11,12 explains it well:

John 1:11-12 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (The unbelieving Jews)

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Both the Gentiles and the believing Jews)
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]So...er...SS is not enough, then. QED

Yours in Christ

Matt