True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-24-2012, 06:56 PM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,248
Default Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Magazine Article:
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
By STEVE RAY


A prominent organization out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled The Berean Call. The title is taken from Acts 17, where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a Protestant doctrine invented in the fifteenth century. It declares the Bible is the sole source of revelation and the only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith. Martin Luther developed it as a reaction to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Fathers of the first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition and so was left with sola scriptura—the Bible alone.

In reality, though, Hunt has turned the episode in Berea on its head, since the noble-minded Bereans actually condemn his sola scriptura position. This Bereans passage has been commandeered by Fundamentalists for too long, and it is time Catholics reclaim it. Many have been troubled by this text, and many explanations from a Catholic perspective have been mediocre at best. Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but it is actually a strong argument against sola scriptura and a convincing defense of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians! It is convenient for Fundamentalists to pull this passage out of context and force it to stand alone. That way their case seems convincing, but the context tells the real story. Before we look at the Bereans, let’s take a look at those they are compared to, the Thessalonians. What did the Thessalonians do that made them less noble-minded?

We find out in Acts 17:1–9: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go."

The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed. They treated Paul with contempt and violence, throwing him ignominiously out of town. Why? "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. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong. We must remember that many were proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings, all supposedly based on the Scriptures and revelations from God. Heresies, cults, and sects were as numerous in the Roman Empire as they are today. The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.

Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:10–12).

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. 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 (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

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. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. 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 (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

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."

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 (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. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

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. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of "additional revelation."

Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded. The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis. Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.

To be consistent with his novel theology of sola scriptura, Dave Hunt ought to rename his monthly newsletter. Let me suggest a new title: The Thessalonian Call.
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2  
Old 07-24-2012, 07:59 PM
Moses
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

There is no apparatus of Quality Control when it comes to Apostolic Traditions.
There is no way to validate how many of the Apostolic Traditions are genuine and original and how many are later good and spirited additions but still not real Apostolic in their content and time. These are dealt under Apostolic succession.

Why some Orthodox Churches accept only some councils and not the others?

Because Catholics and non Catholics are humans after all there is a room that some traditions maybe political or for promotion of this or that issue.

As I mentioned in other posts anything that came out during dark time in history from Catholic Church at the time when it was lead by couple of evil Popes most likely shouldn't be trusted as canonical or binding or even should be rejected as valid Apostolic Traditions.

So who ever suggesting rejecting "Sola Scritura " needs to come up with trustworthy supplemental traditions.
Some sources of traditions lost their credibility and shouldn't be trusted but also rejected.

Personal relationship with Christ when approaching scripture and guidance by GH is needed on individual level first.

Otherwise under "Apostolic Tradition" everything can be sold - abuses in selling and granting indulgences were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517)

Quote:
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets.
This is why Paul's teachings are now a part of Sola Sriptura the New Testament Canon. And no one can add or remove from it.
At best errors in interpretation can happen.
That is if the teachings added to the Canon of NT are really Paul's in a whole or edited by Paul's followers in other centuries
as traditions.

Yet at some point it was canonized and it became scripture.

Quote:
Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded.
I'm sure this stands today to, all that is asked is for real genuine Apostolic Traditions and not contaminated man made additions during the 2000 years.

Last edited by Moses : 07-24-2012 at 08:16 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #3  
Old 07-24-2012, 09:37 PM
BishopPaul2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Magazine Article:
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
By STEVE RAY


A prominent organization out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled The Berean Call. The title is taken from Acts 17, where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a Protestant doctrine invented in the fifteenth century. It declares the Bible is the sole source of revelation and the only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith. Martin Luther developed it as a reaction to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Fathers of the first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition and so was left with sola scriptura—the Bible alone.

In reality, though, Hunt has turned the episode in Berea on its head, since the noble-minded Bereans actually condemn his sola scriptura position. This Bereans passage has been commandeered by Fundamentalists for too long, and it is time Catholics reclaim it. Many have been troubled by this text, and many explanations from a Catholic perspective have been mediocre at best. Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but it is actually a strong argument against sola scriptura and a convincing defense of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians! It is convenient for Fundamentalists to pull this passage out of context and force it to stand alone. That way their case seems convincing, but the context tells the real story. Before we look at the Bereans, let’s take a look at those they are compared to, the Thessalonians. What did the Thessalonians do that made them less noble-minded?

We find out in Acts 17:1–9: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go."

The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed. They treated Paul with contempt and violence, throwing him ignominiously out of town. Why? "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. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong. We must remember that many were proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings, all supposedly based on the Scriptures and revelations from God. Heresies, cults, and sects were as numerous in the Roman Empire as they are today. The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.

Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:10–12).

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. 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 (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

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. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. 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 (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

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."

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 (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. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

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. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of "additional revelation."

Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded. The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis. Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.

To be consistent with his novel theology of sola scriptura, Dave Hunt ought to rename his monthly newsletter. Let me suggest a new title: The Thessalonian Call.
The except in purple destroys your or more specifically Steve Ray's argument. Paul, as was his custom, argued from the Scriptures. Not from traditions. Interestingly, the oral tradition was the passing of the Scriptures verbally. Nothing more or less. Once the Scriptures took written form the oral tradition effectively ended. If someone wants to be a living bible speaking it without needing to look anything up, more power to them. I for one would enjoy hearing it. Most of the apostles were not the most highly educated. Peter for one was not a writer.

The Gospel attributed to Mark is actually the Gospel of Peter as recorded by Mark. Mark wasn't there for most of Jesus ministry. By the time Peter would have wrote 1,2 Peter, Peter was a fairly old man. He had undergone great trial and the vigors of travel and the hard life of a fisherman would have aged Peter even faster making his writing illegible. Even Paul didn't do the writing of his epistles. Scribes did the writing. Only the book of Philemon could possibly be argued to have been actually written by Paul the other 4 accounts of Paul doing any writing were just the greetings.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #4  
Old 07-25-2012, 12:44 AM
Moses
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopPaul2 View Post
The except in purple destroys your or more specifically Steve Ray's argument. Paul, as was his custom, argued from the Scriptures. Not from traditions. Interestingly, the oral tradition was the passing of the Scriptures verbally. Nothing more or less. Once the Scriptures took written form the oral tradition effectively ended. If someone wants to be a living bible speaking it without needing to look anything up, more power to them. I for one would enjoy hearing it. Most of the apostles were not the most highly educated. Peter for one was not a writer.

The Gospel attributed to Mark is actually the Gospel of Peter as recorded by Mark. Mark wasn't there for most of Jesus ministry. By the time Peter would have wrote 1,2 Peter, Peter was a fairly old man. He had undergone great trial and the vigors of travel and the hard life of a fisherman would have aged Peter even faster making his writing illegible. Even Paul didn't do the writing of his epistles. Scribes did the writing. Only the book of Philemon could possibly be argued to have been actually written by Paul the other 4 accounts of Paul doing any writing were just the greetings.
I tend to think that the Apostles undergo some miracles change during the Pentecost and the "Support" from Heaven that they got.

From people who ran and hide and three times denied Christ Jesus to people who were no longer afraid, preached to angry mob, got bitten and cursed abused and no longer afraid.
Some left their country to go to preach the Gospel around to other nations.
They ate and spoke with the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Also like when Daniel or Ezekiel, loosing strength and the Angel would touch them and they regain their strength, I think they were given such perseverance, snake bites would not harm them.

Some got a gift of speaking in tongs, etc, they could drive out evil spirits and heal people etc.
But the old age does take tole. Even a mighty worrier King David at old age needed a maiden to keep warm etc.

Some 277 years after the Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem, the Nazarene Church was virtually non-existent, My Jerusalem church was struggling.

Dominated "christian" groups such as the Paulinists, Boethusians, Ebionites and Tertullians etc.
Roman Emperor Diocletian (284-305) has tried unsuccessfully to bring these conflicting factions into some kind of unified religious framework, without much success. However, under Emperor Constantine I, a new strategy was formed to "force" the various "christian" groups and cults to unify under one creed.

Last edited by Moses : 07-25-2012 at 12:57 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #5  
Old 07-25-2012, 12:57 AM
BishopPaul2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
I tend to think that the Apostles undergo some miracles change during the Pentecost and the "Support" from Heaven that they got.

From people who ran and hide and three times denied Christ Jesus to people who were no longer afraid, preached to angry mob, got bitten and cursed abused and no longer afraid.
Some left their country to go to preach the Gospel around to other nations.
They ate and spoke with the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Also like when Daniel or Ezekiel, loosing strength and the Angel would touch them and they regain their strength, I think they were given such perseverance, snake bites would not harm them.

Some got a gift of speaking in tongs, etc, they could drive out evil spirits and heal people etc.
Of course they did Moses. They sat and ate with Jesus after He was cruxified. If that doesn't reassure you that you have partaken in the divine nothing ever will. From cowards to courageous the story of the apostles.

What does that have to do with the topic though? Not catching your point.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6  
Old 07-25-2012, 01:33 AM
Moses
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopPaul2 View Post
Of course they did Moses. They sat and ate with Jesus after He was cruxified. If that doesn't reassure you that you have partaken in the divine nothing ever will. From cowards to courageous the story of the apostles.

What does that have to do with the topic though? Not catching your point.
I think I replied by mistake to a wrong topic here. :-)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #7  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:02 AM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,248
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Its amazing to see what lengths you guys will go to in order to tapdance around the facts
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #8  
Old 07-25-2012, 07:10 AM
Moses
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Its amazing to see what lengths you guys will go to in order to tapdance around the facts
Especially when facts are flawed.
History shows how facts can be changed by interested parties.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #9  
Old 07-25-2012, 11:45 AM
Dwaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

I dont know how anyone calling themselves a christian can be opposed to the word of God(Sola Scriptura).Here is what Jesus had to say Luke 4:4"And Jesus answered him saying,it is written,That man shall not live by bread alone,but by every word of God".

The word of God is the scripture.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #10  
Old 07-25-2012, 12:58 PM
Moses
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

We should ask what is the Motive of this post in the first place.

Catholic WHO? ahhh Crusader, obviously promoting his point of view and defending Catholic faith with criticism and examples of how Non Catholics maybe be wrong in their Faith or interpretation, understanding.
I find very educations and interesting what he has to say.

With no offence taken, debate is good and we can debate and present our point of view.

One reply that is consistent from my side of the debate is that unfortunately
Catholic Church simply lost it credibility in the sight of others who are not Catholic.
They ran affairs and still running them, for many centuries actually more then 1500 years.
The reformation was a result of abuse and state of affairs of RCC at the time.

The traditions that are presented to us as if they passed from the original apostles are mixed with other traditions so how can it be accepted ?

It has no credibility because of the contamination.
As it ben told in the past, a drop of ink contaminate a backed of water.

I'm willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong. Non of the reading and videos posted so far demonstrate that foreign infiltration of traditions didn't happen.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura CatholicCrusader Theology 467 12-20-2011 11:37 PM
Why The Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura CatholicCrusader Theology 57 05-28-2010 04:27 PM
Sola Scriptura. Beauty1 Theology 194 02-05-2010 11:59 AM
Question regarding Sola Scriptura RollingThunder General Discussions 53 11-09-2009 09:44 PM
Sola Scriptura. diebamted21 Bible Chat 104 05-14-2009 09:36 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29