But the Bereans didn't have that Word of God with every jot and tittle!
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And as already "repeatedly" pointed it - IF that point of yours were "substantive" then the Apostolic RESPONSE to them SHOULD have been "HEy you Bereans you have an INCOMPLETE Bible! Please do not try to VALIDATE or TEST the WORD of an Apostle against the WRONG Bible or against the INCOMPLETE BIBLE! You are in a huge amount of RISK by using that Bible-only method to TEST the words of a Roman Catholic APOSTLE to SEE IF that word is TRUE".
But "instead" of those Catholic sentiments being expressed - we see the Protestant notion of "approval" of "Sola scripture".
Matt - your continual reference to the fact that they did not have as much scripture as we have - is devastating your OWN POINT! It merely makes this a MORE EXTREME case of APPROVAL of something that should by ALL means (Catholic) have been absolutely and unquestionably CONDEMNED for it is at MORE RISK of bad-results than the thing the RCC whines about today in regard to the use of God's MORE FULL Word!!
You simply keep pointing out the FLAW in your own argument "as if" that is some argument in favor of it!!
I don't understand your logic in that.
In Christ,
Bob
"...they searched the scriptures daily, to see if these things were so".
Suggests the Berea had scripture and knew exactly how to use it.
Are we forgetting that the Berean Assembly had the indwelling of The Spirit The Holy which came on the Day of Pentecost? Not only did they have scripture, but they also had the Holy Spirit to lead, guide and direct them in all Truth.
This is the big difference between true assemblies and false assemblies. If the members are not regenerated and the assembly is unlawful, how can they know about Truth?
Selah,
Bro. James
Suggests the Berea had scripture and knew exactly how to use it.
Are we forgetting that the Berean Assembly had the indwelling of The Spirit The Holy which came on the Day of Pentecost? Not only did they have scripture, but they also had the Holy Spirit to lead, guide and direct them in all Truth.
This is the big difference between true assemblies and false assemblies. If the members are not regenerated and the assembly is unlawful, how can they know about Truth?
Selah,
Bro. James
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Correction - these Bereans were non-Christian Jews and Gentiles who were for the first time being told about the Gospel by Paul. They were not pentecostal or spirit-filled or church leaders. These are Jews and Gentiles taking a hard look at what the Apostle is saying and using God's Word to see IF those things are so!!
You might call them a "false assembly" -- given your argument above.
You might call them a "false assembly" -- given your argument above.
Bob, if as you say my point is devastating to my argument - which I obviously do not accept! - and Acts 17 amounts to an approval then what it approves is a negative - that the New Testament was not necessary. Tell me, Bob, if the Bereans already had what was necessary for salvation - the Scriptures they possessed as you say - why (a) were they not already Christians and (b) did the Holy Spirit have to send Paul to them to preach the Gospel?
Bro James - there wasn't a Berean church/ congregation at that point because as Bob has pointed out, they were not at that point Christians and you need Christians for a church. However if you are arguing as you seem to be that the Holy Spirit acting through the Church does guide and direct into all Truth, then I would agree with you
Yours in Christ
Matt
Bro James - there wasn't a Berean church/ congregation at that point because as Bob has pointed out, they were not at that point Christians and you need Christians for a church. However if you are arguing as you seem to be that the Holy Spirit acting through the Church does guide and direct into all Truth, then I would agree with you
Yours in Christ
Matt
I have always classified myself as an "Evangelical" being a member of a SBC for the past 31 years. With pragmatism player a bigger part in our denomination today I think that based on what I discern from reading the postings on this board that I may be more of a "Fundamentalist" if I understand this term correctly. I would like someone to explain the basic differance between the two if there be any.
(This post is done in all sincerety and honesty with no other intent)
(This post is done in all sincerety and honesty with no other intent)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
No...I really don't have any doctrinal reservations about the Orthodox Church. Of course, if it makes you feel better to be presumptive....
I'm not on the "fence". There are other personal issues involved which are quite frankly none of your business. Even if that wasn't the case, one first has to be a catechumen before being chrismated.
Apparently you don't know much about Orthodox soteriology.
No...not really.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
In your mind perhaps, but not really.
I can't speak for the RC, but the details in John 6 show that while Christ isn't speaking of crass cannibalism, what He's teaching is more than just a "figure of speach"
And I showed how the word "symbol" means something other than what you're implying. I also mentioned that these very same writers, that folks allege to be teaching a proto-Zwinglian view of the sacraments based on certain of their writings, have other writings which make it clear they believe in the real presence. In other words, you can't just "proof text" the fathers if you're going to ignore everything else they had to say on a given issue. Otherwise, you're taking them out of context.
Indeed.
I'm not trying to pry into your business, but still; even if it is a personal issue rather than a doctrinal one; still; it is a reservation. But whatever it is; either the Church is true and commands your submission, or it is not. How can you preach it to us and you haven't submitted to it yet?
No; but I'm goinf by what you've been saying. Among the debates has been the issue of salvation by baptism; and I think some of the quotes onthe other thread incuded communion too (based on the premise that "If you don't eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no part in Him"). So are you saying that you can be saved without them now (but not us Zwinglian heretics who don't at least recognize the authority of the Church?)
Mt 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mr 12:24
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Apparently Jesus thought that the Scriptures alone is what taught true doctrine and the power of God. Had it not been so then Jesus would have nothing to argue about with these men since Jesus was speaking AGAINST their traditional teachings.
In HIS service;
Jim
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mr 12:24
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Apparently Jesus thought that the Scriptures alone is what taught true doctrine and the power of God. Had it not been so then Jesus would have nothing to argue about with these men since Jesus was speaking AGAINST their traditional teachings.
In HIS service;
Jim
But the point is that Jesus also interpreted the Scriptures, sometimes so radically as to at least appear to contradict them ("You have heard it said...but I say to you..."etc). His teachings on those subjects in turn formed part of the Gospels and thus part of the NT. Putting it another way, if the OT was enough, we wouldn't need the NT
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Fair enough--I'll quit posting here until I'm actually christmated in the Church. (Sorry for sounding so short in the above post.)
I'll repeat what I said--you need to read more (from Orthodox sources) to better acquaint yourself with the Orthodox view of salvation.
[Over and out]
I would say that Jesus is ALLOWED to interpret Scripture any way He wanst to. We are NOT. And we are NOT allowed to interpret it FOR others.
The obvious point of the passage is that Jesus told them they had missed it in the Scriptures and their TRADITION was all wrong. Their TRADITION overthrew the Scriptures. Jesus condemned this concept of adding TRADITION to Scripture.
In HIS service;
Jim
Jesus corrected their interpretation
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
The Bereans already had the Word of God in the Old Testament, as did all the Jews. Peter used it on the Day of Pentecost. Philip used it with the Ethiopian Eunoch. With both it was an appeal to authority. Look at the account with Philip. It especially is instructive. The Ethiopian was riding through the desert reading from the Book of Isaiah. Philip ran to him and seeing him reading Isaiah, asked him: "Understandst what thou readest?" Do you understand what you are reading? The Ethiopian answered: "How can I except some man should guide me." See here how God has ordained men to the preaching of the gospel, and uses men to explain the Scriptures to the unsaved men, who because of their unsaved condition cannot understand the Scriptures on their own. The account goes on to say that: "Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus." What the Ethiopian could not see, Philip opened his eyes throuth the Holy Spirit, and showed him that the Scripture was speaking of Jesus. He led the eunuch to the Lord, who later was baptized.
Philip did not follow a magesterium's dictates. It was sola scriptura all the way. It was his interpretation of that passage of Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He led the Ethiopian eunuch to the Lord by rightly dividing the Word of Truth. He did not need a teaching authority (not even the apostles) to tell him what the passage meant. All that he needed was the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirt, neither God, neither the Apostles ever rebuked him for "his interpretation." How do we know it was the right interpretation? He preached Christ. The Holy Spirit led him. This is sola scriptura all the way. There are many examples throughout Scripture of the same thing.
The Holy Spirit sent Paul to the Bereans for the same reason that the Holy Spirit sent Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch. "How can I understand except some man should guide me?" It is a fulfillment of the Great Commission.
DHK
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Matt, this just isn't that hard.
You are referencing the APPROVAL of the Bereans and now you claim you can not tell if the text is APPROVING ???
Come on - Matt the simple stuff should not be so confusing!!
Lets read the text "again" and SEE if it is really "that difficutl" to "see" that the Bereans are being APPORVED by the first NT Bible author.
Your claim is now that this is confusing to you???
Surely Matt that can not be true. Perhaps you only wish it were confusing - it is very clear that the Bereans are given a positive - note of EXPLICIT approval here.
#1. Do you insist that you can not tell that now?
#2. You have already admitted that you SEE this sola scriptura approach so clearly APPROVED in the text and you see it as "risky" because in your words "what IF they had not found the Bible to agree with Paul's teaching"?? Do you now deny that you applied this very "sola scriptura is risky" argument against Acts 17:11???
If you still admit that you HAVE taken that approach - THEN the simple fact is - this IS sola scriptura and it IS approved in the text!!
(Your claims that "yes but it is very risky" not withstanding.
#3. Your argument THEN turns into "yes but EVEN thought they DID come to the right conclusion and even though they ARE approved (as we see IN the text) isn't this STILL a negative because the text is not the complete Bible??".
To which the OBVIOUS answer "is STILL" -- the fact that they did not have as much Bible as we do COMBINED with the fact that they are APPROVED ANYWAY - ONLY FURTHER emphasizes the negative that this incident constitutes with respect to the classic RCC argument. It means that IN THE EXTREME (a case where the student does NOT have all the Bible and IS NOT even a Christian) the sola scriptura method is STILL APPROVED!!
A more devastating case could not be imagined against the RCC POV!!
In your continuall reference to this self-defeating point, you are stuck with the clear fact that THIS SHOULD be a case were BOTH the RCC and the Non-RCC camps AGREE since they are not using AS MUCH Bible as we have today. SURELY here we could find SOME FAULT with sola-scriptura for this is an EXTREME case where we find the following.
#1. The Bible students are not even Christian.
#2. They do not even have the FULL Bible that we have today.
IF EVER there was a case to bash the practice of sola-scriptura (even if you are someone who accepts sola scriptura) it would be THIS ONE! Where NON-Christians are the student and the BIBLE in use is NOT the FULL Bible of today!!
So when THIS EXTREME case is STILL APPROVED by the NT authors - ALL hope is LOST for the RCC attacks on the model of sola scriptura!!
I can not believe that you keep referencing this case that so devastates the RCC point on sola scriptura - as if this is going to help your argument.
What in the world are you thinking???
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. I already pointed out in my previous posts (on salvation after 200 AD) that your premise is flawed and I SHOWED the case of 2Tim 3, and Heb 11 and John the Baptizer and Enoch and Elijah and Moses ALL pre-CROSS all saved - ALL with various levels of the OT text.
Christ never argued before the cross "you can not yet be saved because you do not yet know the full NT story nor do you have every last letter that will be written prior to 100 AD".
Your premise is seriously flawed!
IN Heb 4:1 we find this statement about the OT saints "The Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to THEM ALSO".
#1. Your premise is flawed.
#2. Your argument is that EVEN though this is sola scriptura APPROVED in Acts 17:11 we should not pay any attention to it IF it involves TESTING The message of Paul against the scripture - since Paul should not need to be sent if Sola-scriptura is true.
You use a circular argument there - so again your argument is flawed.
Sola Scriptura by definition states that ALL doctrine is to be TESTED by scripture. Your argument is that IF that is true NOT doctrine should be accepted since it must already be present in scripture.
You are using circular reasoning. Doctrine is foundational and progressive because doctrine is our PERCEPTION and UNDERSTANDING of truth. So also is the Gospel story an unfolding one with DETAILS presented over time that BUILD on that foundation laid down - which is Christ.
The DETAIL of the 12 apostles is NOT mentioned in the OT - but in 1Cor 15:1-9 we see that LISTED as part of the Gospel that Paul taught.
You seem to totally miss the definition of the principle of understanding, doctrine, truth and the foundation of truth being laid in scripture.
Each doctrine IS testable via scripture - as Acts 17:11 points out where Paul is presenting the DETAILS of the life of Christ the MESSIAH but is basing his doctrine on the FOUNDATION of scripture so that it is easy to TEST - to VERIFY "sola scriptura".
For that reason they DID test Paul's word BY the scriptures to "see IF those things are so".
There is no possibility to invent the idea that they DID NOT do this - they DID! And this is sola scriptura practiced "in verity".
Even the RCC would have to admit that to the extent that non-CAtholics subject statements of the RCC to that SAME kind of test - they are practicing sola scriptura.
How can it be missed??
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
There is one discussion about why we should be testing doctrine sola scriptura (i.e. what is the place of an evangelist). There is another topic (related in some way) which is "why does God use evangelists".
Regardless of whether you find a good reason for why there are evangelists (a good and fun discussion to have but I want to avoid obfuscating this particular fact of sola scriptura in Acts 17:11 and the obvious approval of the Bereans) - this point in Acts 17 does not change. The text will read the same regardless and the RCC's position against "Sola scriptura" will fail on the basis of the clear facts of Acts 17:11 "alone".
In Christ,
Bob
Regardless of whether you find a good reason for why there are evangelists (a good and fun discussion to have but I want to avoid obfuscating this particular fact of sola scriptura in Acts 17:11 and the obvious approval of the Bereans) - this point in Acts 17 does not change. The text will read the same regardless and the RCC's position against "Sola scriptura" will fail on the basis of the clear facts of Acts 17:11 "alone".
In Christ,
Bob
Let me ask you this a different way: are you seriously suggesting that the Bereans would have been saved solely from their reading of the OT Scriptures?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt