Sola Scriptura Christians and Act 17:11

In a discussion with a Sola Scriptura Christian he has mentioned Acts 17:11 : "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." I know their are several other verses which state the church of the living God as the foundation of truth. However, how can I clarify to him that even though this is mentioned, ultimatly its the Church with gives and guides one to the truth even to what it interpreted in scripture.

I figured that this statement refering to the Bereans was made with regard to the Biblical proof of the fulfillment of Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, as those were the “Scriptures” they were refering to. However, once you believe Paul does speak truth then you must accept the truth found in the new testament which teaches that Christ’s church, is the pilar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Is there anything more convincing particularly regarding these apparent Sola Scipturist of the New Testament?

ABSOLUTELY!!! I have had the same verse proposed to me to look at things objectively and seek the truth, but, I kept reading, and note that the next verse (12) says, “Most were converted,” or something like that. Note that, “Most”. Not “ALL”, “most”. What does this tell us? This tells us that not all were able to come to a conclusion by just reading the scriptures on what is right. They all took what they would & some came away from it changed from what they had previously thought, but, not all. Some of them were not convinced that these scriptures DID talk about Paul & what he was doing…hmmmm…very interesting…:hmmm: Some people claimed one thing (that Paul was really from God) & others weren’t convinced. They all read the same verses…possibly even debated…yet, there was no authoritative figure to say what was right. They had 1) themselves, 2) a book…and yet, they cannot reach a concensus… (Do you see where I am going with this?:wink: )

Besides all this, they examined the scriptures…That may include ALL the 46 books of the O.T., meaning, somewhere, Baruch or 1 Macc may have been consulted…and, if this is the case, then, how curious. Either, those truly ARE part of the inspired Word of God, OR, non-inspired books told of this inspired man…hmmmm…

Now, of course, this is just my own rationale behind all this and deducted from my own logic, which, if I might say, is NOT even merely mediocre. I cannot think progressively/coherently for the life of me, no matter how much I try. BUT, if that is the case, as I have not heard this theory by anybody else, let alone the Church, then, I have only myself to blame if I am wrong with this…but, if I am wrong with this, how will I know? Nobody above me is here to tell me. I have 1) me, & 2) this verse. If I am understanding this correctly, then, not everybody was convinced from reading a parchment. If I’m misinterpriting it, well then, so much for Sola Scriptura.

Actual Passage: nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/acts/acts17.htm

They stirred up the crowd and the city magistrates who, upon hearing these charges, 9 took a surety payment from Jason and the others before releasing them. 10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. 12 Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had now been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea also, they came there too to cause a commotion and stir up the crowds.

----Note verse 12.

I would hate to know that my whole Religion…my whole belief system, was based on just 2-3 quotes from the Bible…how sad.

I don’t think that this verse proves sola scriptura. No, Catholic is going to say that you shouldn’t read and search your bible. We study the bible when a question arises. That quote doesn’t say that you should only study the scripture. It merely says that the Bereans, who weren’t yet Christians, studied scripture.

Steve Ray has a really good article on his website:
catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=34

Click on the link above and scroll down to the file titled “Bereans: Did the noble-minded Bereans believe in the Bible alone?”

[quote=jusher7281]Steve Ray has a really good article on his website:
catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=34

Click on the link above and scroll down to the file titled “Bereans: Did the noble-minded Bereans believe in the Bible alone?”
[/quote]

Good rebutal to Steve Ray’s article from James White.

aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html

Peace <><

[quote=kaycee]Good rebutal to Steve Ray’s article from James White.

aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html

Peace <><
[/quote]

And here he rebutes his own rebutal:

bringyou.to/apolonio/truth.htm

[quote=Luke1:48]And here he rebutes his own rebutal:

bringyou.to/apolonio/truth.htm
[/quote]

I thought Dr. Whites point is clear.

“One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” **It is a canard ** to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?” aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html

Not sure what your point was. :confused:

Peace <><

[quote=kaycee]I thought Dr. Whites point is clear.

“One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” **It is a canard **to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?” aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html

Not sure what your point was. :confused:

Peace <><
[/quote]

Well if he states that sola scriptura is not a vailid concept durring the Apostolic Age and he even said that the Apostles did not practice it, then that means Acts 17:11 does not support Sola Scriptura, because it was durring the Apostolic Age.

To add to Luke’s point, if during times of revelation they did not operate under sola scriptura then they could not possibly have written it in to the Bible because it would have contradicted what was happening during the period of revelation where they weren’t abiding by it. Now perhaps if the very last word of revelations said “it’s all done gang, now Sola Scriptura is the way”. But sadly it doesn/t. Or perhaps if they had had an unveiling of the Bible when all the writing was done so they wouldn’t have read words that contradicted what they word doing, i.e. following both written and oral teaching. But sadly there was no such unveiling and Protestants continue to prop up this unbiblical scheme of allowing each individual to become a Bible expert in Bible exegesis 30 days or less and trust in his own understanding. (Read Prov 3:5 if you don’t get my last comment).

[quote=Luke1:48]Well if he states that sola scriptura is not a vailid concept durring the Apostolic Age and he even said that the Apostles did not practice it, then that means Acts 17:11 does not support Sola Scriptura, because it was durring the Apostolic Age.
[/quote]

Paul was commending the Bereans (not apostles) for using scripture to judge his words. They clearly used scripture as their highest authority to judge what Paul was saying. I dont think you understand what Dr. White is saying.

“Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn’t that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in “traditions” that are uncertain.” aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html

If the Catholic Chruch is wrong, then the scripture must be wrong, too – because it was the Catholic Church which developed the concept of a NEW Testament, and the Catholic Church which compiled the canon.

And the Church which created the New Testament says, “There were also many other things that Jesus did, but if they were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written” (John 21,25).

[quote=kaycee] I dont think you understand what Dr. White is saying.

[/quote]

I think many of us here know what JW thinks about sola Scriptura, and it is a subject of debate that he usually doesn’t fare very well. You don’t need to continue posting his opinions.

Peace,
Mickey

[quote=kaycee]“Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn’t that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in “traditions” that are uncertain.” aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html
[/quote]

Hi Kaycee:

  1. How does the concept of sola scriptura describe the Church in her “normative state”?
  2. You asked how the Church has sure access to the truths of God today? She has that sure access because Jesus Christ entrusted Her with His authority. It is based on that authority that allows the Church to clarify for all of humankind what scripture is in the first place.
  3. Sola Scriptura may say the Church always has an ultimate authority to turn to, but my Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Jesus also instructed us to go to the Church in matters of disputation to act as the final arbiter.
  4. It seems to me that the only tradition that is uncertain is “sola scriptura.”

Peace
Fiat

[quote=kaycee]Paul was commending the Bereans (not apostles) for using scripture to judge his words. They clearly used scripture as their highest authority to judge what Paul was saying. I dont think you understand what Dr. White is saying.

“Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn’t that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in “traditions” that are uncertain.” aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html
[/quote]

Man, your really redefining sola scriptura here. Of course so is JW.

You just don’t get it. The Apostles could not have written about Sola Scriptura and then been telling people, “follow our traditions” as they are passed on to you from others. That would make Sola Scriptura that was supposedly in scripture a lie. Contrary to the Bible. Then they have the problem of after scripture is all written those nasty left over verses that say "follow the oral as well as the written teachings (2 Thes 2:15 comes to mind). Now those verses are a lie if SS is true. It’s just total nonsense. There is no way that Sola Scriptura could be identified in the Bible while the Apostles expected the people to rely on some oral teaching as well. Therefore the only way Sola Scriptura could be true is if it is an oral tradition. Oops, that makes it self refuting and false. This stuff by JW is the worst arguementation I have ever heard.

I was on jury duty some time ago and it was easy to tell who was lying because they had to manufacture new stories because the old ones just didn’t hold water. This seems to be what James is doing.

Blessings

In a discussion with a Sola Scriptura Christian he has mentioned Acts 17:11 : “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and** examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”** I know their are several other verses which state the church of the living God as the foundation of truth. However, how can I clarify to him that even though this is mentioned, ultimatly its the Church with gives and guides one to the truth even to what it interpreted in scripture.

I figured that this statement refering to the Bereans was made with regard to the Biblical proof of the fulfillment of Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, as those were the “Scriptures” they were refering to. However, once you believe Paul does speak truth then you must accept the truth found in the new testament which teaches that Christ’s church, is the pilar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Is there anything more convincing particularly regarding these apparent Sola Scipturist of the New Testament?

[quote=kaycee]Paul was commending the Bereans (not apostles) for using scripture to judge his words. They clearly used scripture as their highest authority to judge what Paul was saying. I dont think you understand what Dr. White is saying.

“Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn’t that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in “traditions” that are uncertain.” aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html
[/quote]

However, Acts 17:11 is durring the time of Revelation, thus the Bereans were not practicing sola scriptura, because there was no Sola Scriptura at that time. They were relying on the traditions of the apostles to interpret the scriptures, just like the Catholic Church does today.

[quote=kaycee]"Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state.
[/quote]

And how do we know that? Where does it say that in Scripture? And if it doesn’t say that, isn’t your claim just another “nebulous, a-historical tradition”?

And when did the “normative state” kick in? 1517? Because sola scriptura wasn’t used as a “normative” principle until just about that time.

[quote=kaycee]Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn’t that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in “traditions” that are uncertain." aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html
[/quote]

I think this qualifies as a “weknow” as James White’s sister, Patty Bonds, now a Catholic convert puts it, “A “weknow” is a** presupposition ** that we apply to a scripture that keeps us from seeing what is really written there.”

Why when there are so many biblical verses that contradict this. Kaycee just leaves those “on the bookshelf”. Completely ignoring outright biblical support for oral tradition without any such exceptions for the “normative” or times of “enscripturization”.

1 Thessalonians 2:13-13For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15- So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by** word of mouth ** or by letter.

I can continue on and on. Its all biblical. Note there are NO exceptions. Its Kaycee and James White which make the alterations and exceptions.

I’ll leave you with this last verse:

1 Corinthians 1:12 - What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, "I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? "

so therefore we can appropriately modify this to modern times, without changing its meaning.

"What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Billy Graham”; another, “I follow James White”; another, "I follow my own interpretation”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? "

Thus you must ask yourself " Do I follow Jesus’ the implied commandment OF JESUS to obey His earthly church which has the authority(founded by Christ) to bind and loosen. Or do you listen to your own Man made traditions and translations and thus formulate what keeps us divided against the prayers and desires of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:10).

In conclusion, Sola Scriptura is a fallacy invented by Man, and defended by man with additional nonbiblical alterations, because if one were strickily Sola Scriptura one would realize that the truth comes “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” through Christ himself and His command through his Church’s by Apostolic succession, “the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe” , and 1 Timothy 3:15 particularly "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the PILAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH”

[quote=Luke1:48]And here he rebutes his own rebutal:

bringyou.to/apolonio/truth.htm
[/quote]

Thanks for this! I’ve added it to my collection of favorites! :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.