The Bereans vs. Sola Scriptura
Editor's Note:
Quotes from Steve Ray's original article in "This Rock" magazine of
March 1997, are preceded by SR>.
Quotes from James White's response are preceded by JW>.
William Putnam's comments are preceded by WP>.
JW> Steve Ray is a nice guy. At least, we've had some civil discourse in the past via the Internet. He seems like an honest man who is convinced that the position he now embraces-Roman Catholicism-is the true and proper position to take. I start by acknowledging this, for I don't want anyone to think that I bear him any malice. I say this because beyond my recognizing his personal civility, I find little else in his written works that is commendable.
WP> At least he gives you that, Steve. It's nice to know you are civil!
JW> Steve Ray is the first person to tell you he is not a scholar. He's a layman who, as a Baptist, decided he needed to convert to the Roman Catholic faith. He has written a book, Crossing the Tiber, in which he defends his choice. As soon as I obtained the book, I noted a number of glaring deficiencies in the work: numerous errors in representing Protestant theology, a complete failure to interact with any level of Protestant apologetic response, etc. I informed Mr. Ray of this by e-mail.
WP> And he cannot help but turn a humble remark into a degrading of you, Steve, even though he uses a kind tone here. He would have mentioned it even if you did not state you were a layman, I am afraid. He establishes the groundwork for pumping up his own scholastic achievements at your expense. This is typical of James White's tactics of beating down the opponent before you start debating the issues. [Editor's comment: Amen.]
JW> In response, Mr. Ray indicated that his book simply developed out
of a long letter to his parents defending his choice to leave the Baptist
faith and embrace the Roman. He asserted that it was not intended as an
in-depth analysis of Protestant theology. This did not exactly satisfy
my concerns with how often it completely missed the point of the debate,
but I certainly
accepted that this is how Mr. Ray views his book.
JW> It was with some real consternation, therefore, that I read the
March, 1997, issue of This Rock magazine, published by Catholic
Answers. I have long criticized Catholic Answers for using a straw-man
view of sola scriptura in their publications-a practice that, despite my
criticisms, they continue unabated. But in this issue we find an article
titled, Why the Bereans
Rejected Sola Scriptura, written by none other than Steve Ray. Now,
an article in This Rock cannot logically be considered an extension of
a letter to Mr. Ray's parents. This is "new" material. The article describes
Mr. Ray as one who engages "in apologetics work in Michigan." This is a
work specifically designed to be used to convince Protestants that their
belief
in sola scriptura is in error. Hence, I expected a little higher standard
in something like this.
WP> Of all the debates James has been involved in, Sola Scriptura
is the one issue he is proud of and yet he does not seem to come out ahead.
I think he has been soundly beaten by the best on this, and yet he insists
on fighting that battle. The best debate that still needs to be answered
is his exchange with Joe Gallegos that took place in 1993. I will
get into this more later....
[Editor's Comment: Another debate James White has to answer
is the one against Dr. Art Sippo on justification in 1991.]
JW> The Old Anti-Catholic Ploy. Unfortunately, though Mr. Ray does his best to avoid inflammatory speech in personal conversation, the same is not the case regarding his article in This Rock. While avoiding a lot of the "shots" that mark the normal Catholic Answers type material (see examples elsewhere on our web page, including our, response to a CA article on sola scriptura as well as our rebuttal of a recent attack by James Akin [Editor: and the corresponding responses from Catholic Insight, please]) Mr. Ray falls prey to the old "anti-Catholic" ploy. It's a false form of argumentation that Catholic Answers likes to use with regularity (they are hardly the only onesto do so, of course!). It's an invalid attempt to claim the "high ground" by calling anyone who disagrees with you and with your position an "anti-Catholic," while referring to yourself merely as an "apologist." Hence, you make your opponent look like the aggressor, while you are the defender, even when, in point of fact, you are attacking their position (while failing to do a whole lot to actually define and defend your own). [Editor: The reason for the term anti-Catholic is simple. Catholics were there first, so whoever opposes those is an anti-Catholic. That's why the party that loses an election is called the opposition. One might also want to check Mr. White's book "The Fatal Flaw," in which he uses language that, according to his own standards, has every reason to be condemned by himself.]
WP> This is the first time I've seen the term "Anti-Catholic" made to be a ploy. From my youth, I have seen too many attacks from the Protestant pulpit that was against the Church not to use the term for such preaching. James goes off being the wounded puppy over remarks made by those more rabid then he, such as the likes of Dave Hunt. If we object to such statements like "papist" or " Romist" and other derisive terms as anti-Catholic, he will complain, I suppose.
JW> Mr. Ray begins by identifying Dave Hunt's organization as an "anti-Catholic" organization. Later he makes the term "Fundamentalist" a synonym for "anti-Catholic," and uses the phrase "anti-Catholic" two more times, saying, "From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded" and later, "Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans. . . ." It is quite honestly a shame to see Mr. Ray falling into the "us vs. them" mentality so soon after his conversion (1994). I truly doubt he refers to himself as an "anti-Protestant," so why he would adopt such terminology of others is difficult to understand, outside, that is, of the polemics of Roman Catholic apologists. I would like to call upon Mr. Ray (and all Roman Catholic apologists) to cease and desist in their use of such a ploy.
WP> What are we then to call what Dave Hunt says about the Catholic Church? This individual certainly has little good to say about the Church and in fact, his tone is mostly abusive. I am at a loss as to what to call what Dave Hunt does, or does James think that he is a champion to a truth that justifies his manner? Now I have not read any (other then some quotes) of Dave Hunt's material, so I cannot speak first hand, but his reputation is far and wide as a very vocal individual who puts down the Church to the max, to the point of verbal abuse unbecoming of a Christian. If this is so, then do not Catholics have the right to label him for what he is? [Editor: Hunt calls the Church anti-Christ; so does James White. Hmmm, James, you have the same problem about "anti," eh?]
JW> Sola Scriptura: Misrepresented AGAIN. The main criticism that can
be lodged against Mr. Ray's work is quite
simple: he does not accurately portray (or possibly even understand)
the Protestant position that he has abandoned, and is now intent upon attacking.
This is a common problem in Roman Catholic apologetics: and the fact that
many Protestants don't know their faith very well, and hence allow such
misrepresentations to pass without comment or correction, only exacerbates
the situation.
WP> Yes, James is right about this one, but the trouble is, which Protestant denomination is he talking about? If the vast number of Protestant denominations had precisely the same doctrinal statement on Sola Scriptura, then we Catholics could be accurate about it. But ah, that is the rub; we can't because there is too many nuances on how the doctrine is defined. [Editor: Where is Sola Scriptura defined in the Bible, anyway? It is not.]
JW> Now, immediately, someone may say, "Yes, well, both sides always
say that about the other." That's true. But there is a major difference:
when we say someone has misrepresented the Protestant position, we demonstrate
this by documenting what the Protestant position is, and how, in context,
the Roman Catholic writer should have known better. We have explained what
sola scriptura is over and over again in our apologetic writings and
books. Mr. Ray owns my books on Roman Catholicism. He could have (if he
wished) availed himself of many sources that would have saved him from
the error of misrepresentation and straw-man argumentation. But he did
not avail himself of those sources. Why? Only he can answer that question.
WP> The problem is, James has a definition of Sola Scriptura that may work for a number of Protestant denominations, but it won't work for all for all. Perhaps it is because of Sola Scriptura, and the further claim that Scripture is "self interpreting" that is part of the blame in there being so many versions of what Sola Scriptura is. How's that for circular reasoning?
JW> We begin with the following presentation:
WP> Which is where James should have began his discourse at the least.
But consider what James has done so far. He has diminished you, hopefully,
so that others who read this will tend to discredit your article and accept
his rebuttal. Steve, at this point in his rebuttal, don't you feel defeated
already? SR> 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.
JW> It is hard to know where to begin. This is substantially the same
kind of presentation made in his book, Crossing the Tiber. However, in
that book, he accurately identified the Reformation as taking place in
the 16th, not the 15th, century. Since he claims Luther developed the doctrine,
and Luther did not even begin his theological work until (at the earliest)
1510, how
WP> James amuses himself in a bruhaha over dates, be it the 15th
or 16th century, but I was surprised that according to James, Wyclif preceded
Luther in the previous century with the idea of Sola Scriptura. My
Catholic Encyclopedia, the 1965 edition with about 16 volumes, says nothing
about this for Wyclif and, in passing, claims that Luther taught that "there
is only one source of faith, and that is Holy Scripture. Each Christian
conscience must interpret Scripture for itself under the guidance of the
JW> But far more damaging is the simple fact that Mr. Ray does not know
what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura does not say the Bible is the "sole
source of revelation." [Editor: A-hem. What did Luther just say?]
Such is a basic, fundamental mistake on the level of saying, "The Immaculate
Conception means Mary didn't need a Savior." Such would indicate that the
person making the statement has never seriously interacted with any apologetic
defense of the Immaculate Conception. In the same way, Mr. Ray's writings
show a consistent pattern as well: he has not interacted with any serious
Protestant apologetics works, either. Or, if he has, he gives no evidence
of it.
WP> At this point, I wonder if James really knows himself. Now
I am sure his idea of what Sola Scriptura is matches his on denomination
(Reformed Baptist) but does it match what the whole body of Protestantism
says it is?
JW> Sola scriptura says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule
of faith for the Church. It does not deny the existence of "general revelation"
in nature (hence the error of saying the "sole source of revelation").
It is interesting to note, however, that Mr. Ray, in his zeal for the Roman
position, ends up taking the more conservative, traditional partim-partim
viewpoint of tradition and revelation, for while many modern Roman Catholictheologians
are moving toward abandoning the "two-source" view of revelation, Mr. Ray
states his adherence to it plainly a number of times in his article (we
shall note them in passing). Mr. Ray is a former Baptist. Hence, he might
want to be familiar with what the Baptists in 1689 placed in their Confession
WP> No, James, the Bible does not only say nothing about it being the
sole source of revelation, it says nothing about it being the sole source
of faith, either. I wonder who those Catholic theologians are James
speaks of? This would have been a good time to name them, but I suspect
they have not found much favor with the Church.
JW> "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His
own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down
or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time
is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions
of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit
of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are
revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning
the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions
and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian
prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always
to be observed."
WP> I believe James quoted this to me once before, and unfortunately,
I do not have a copy of Augustine's works here. My "Faith of the
Early Fathers" by William Jurgens does not have it. But before I
quote other works of Augustine that would tend to discredit what James
claims that Augustine means in this quote, there is no doubt that the Church
holds the Holy Scriptures
---START QUOTE---
C. Epis Mani 5,6 [Joe, the emphasis was yours. WMP]
Likewise we have Augustine affirming the need for interpreting Scripture
in light of Tradition/Church and never apart from them:
"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church
has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical
scriptures is not brought forward for it"
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis
"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example
taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we
are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared
good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures
recommends to you"
C. Cresconius I:33
"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it
is true"
Sermon 117:6
"If therefore, I am going to believe things I do not know about, why
should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent
of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority
of all peoples?"
Letter called Fundamentals 14:18
"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through
adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself
from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different
parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important
a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?"
C. Julian 1:7,34
"The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so
may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and
councils, is against you"
C Faustus 8:5
Note that St. Augustine appealed to the authority of the Church as opposed
to his own internal witness regarding the validity/authenticity of the
gospel!
Like the rest of the Fathers who intepreted the Scriptures in light
of Tradition and Church, Augustine affirmed Catholic doctrines such as
the real presence:
'For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his
own Body,
JW> JG> St. Augustine speaking of religious usages..."Those which we
keep, not as being written, but as from Tradition, if observed by the whole
of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us by the Apostles
themselves or plenary Councils, and be retained as instituted" Ep 118
JW> Given that this letter is twelve pages long, Joe, would you mind
providing a proper citation? The thing is 34 chapters long....
Be that as it may, is .Augustine speaking of revealed truths? What
is a "religious usage" as you put it?
JG> It doesn't matter what the character of 'religious usage' is James
since St. Augustine affirms the authority of Tradition (on the basis of
universal belief and antiquity) alongside the authority of the Scriptures.
Remember Sola Scriptura is just that--the Scriptures Alone is all one needs...St.
Augustine admits some doctrines on the basis of Tradition (such as infant
baptism, heretical baptism) and interprets Scripture within the grid of
Tradition/Church and not via the rule of Sola Scriptura. The farthest thing
from Augustine, like the rest of the Fathers, is that he interprets Scripture
within the milieu of tradition and Church as opposed to private interpretation.
St. Augustine regarding infant baptism:
JW> Ah yes, back to having to fight with Cyprian on baptism.
Nevertheless you haven't dealt with the text that clearly shows Augustine
affirmed the authority placed in 'the faith of the whole Church' as an
authority coming from the Apostles. An authority in which the Scriptures
are to be interpreted not apart from it!
Now to provide further evidence that St. Augustine did not appeal to
the reformers' concept of Sola Scriptura.
Here we read clearly that for ambiguous and doubtful passages St. Augustine
appealed not to Sola Scriptura but rather "the rule of faith which has
gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, AND from the authority
of the Church, AND of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking
in the first book about things"
On Christian Doctrine III, 2
Likewise we have St. Augustine appeal to another monument of Tradition
(the universal/conciliar belief of the Church) for determining his canon
of the New Testament Scriptures--Note that for St. Augustine, like Catholic
apologists today, he appealed to the authority of Church/Tradition in regards
to determining the canon of the New Testament and not his own
"Now, in regards to the canonical Scriptures, he MUST FOLLOW the judgment
of the greater number of catholic churches...Accordingly, among the canonical
Scriptures he will judge according to the standard: to prefer those that
are
On Christian Doctrine II,8
Similarly, St. Augustine affirms the authority of Tradition (via the
monument of universal belief and usage) regarding prayers for the dead.
We read:
"In the books of Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead.
Howbeit, even if their were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures,
not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole
Church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the
Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the death hath its place"
De Cura Pro Mortuis I,3
Again, we find St. Augustine appealing to Tradition and Church (via
Council/Conciliar belief etc.) regarding heretical baptism, Cyprian and
the Donatist controversies and not the Scriptures alone...
"By this witness he gives sufficient proof how much more ready he would
have been to bear his testimony, had ANY Council been held to discuss this
matter which either embraced the whole Church, or at least represented
our brethren beyond the sea. But such a Council had not yet been held,
because the whole world bound together by the powerful bond of custom;
and this was deemed SUFFICIENT to oppose to those who wish to introduce
what was new, because they could not comprehend the truth. Afterwards,
however, while the question became a matter for discussion and investigation
amongst many on either side, the new practice was not only invented, but
even submitted to the authority and power of a PLENARY Council"
De Baptismo C. Donatists II,7
Likewise, St. Augustine appeals to Tradition and Church regarding the
doctrine of infant baptism. In this passage we find St. Augustine affirm
a couple of aspects of Tradition; 1)viewed as a belief held by the whole
Church , 2) a belief that is entrenched in antiquity and 3)a belief that
is unchanging. In addition, we find St. Augustine contrasting the apostolic
authority of invariable custom with the authority placed in the Church
(in Council)...Again we find St. Augustine, like Athanasius and the rest
of the
"And this is the firm tradition of the universal church, in respect
of baptism of infants...and if one seek for divine authority in this matter,
though what is held by the WHOLE Church, and that not as instituted by
Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have
been handed down by APOSTOLIC authority..." ibid IV,31
Hence for St. Augustine, Scripture is the criterion of faith but not
at the exclusion of tradition and Church. That is why St. Augustine explicitly
affirms (eg. heretical baptism, infant baptism etc.) what the Church has
traditionally/generally held to be of apostolic authority. In addition,
St. Augustine also affirms that this tradition is entrusted to the Church
and preserved by apostolic succession. Regarding infant baptism and original
sin St. Augustine affirms that his interpretation was in-line with the
"For who does not see in what degree Coelestius was bound by the interrogations
of your holy predecessor and by the answers of Coelestius, whereby he professed
that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, and fastened by a most
wholesome chain, so as not to dare any further to maintain that the original
sin of infants is not put away in baptism? Because these are the words
of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian
Council....'by the purification of a new
C. Duas Epis Pelagianorum II,6
Likewise, here we have St. Augustine affirming his interpretation of
Sacred Scriptures(re: Original Sin) is in-line with Church and tradition
(as seen in the monuments of the Church Fathers) as opposed to his own
private interpretation.
"What, moreover, shall I say of those commentators on the divine Scriptures
who have flourished in the catholic Church? They have never tried to prevent
these testimonies to an ALIEN sense, because they were firmly ESTABLISHED
in our most ancient and solid faith, and were never moved aside from error.
Were I wish to collect these together and to make use of their testimony,
the task would be too long, and I should probably seem to have bestowed
less preference that I ought on the canonical authorities, from one must
never deviate" De Nup et Conc II,51
---END OF QUOTE--- [From Joe Gallegos: AGUSTN.TXT, part of Fathers.zip]
WP> Wow! Now if that does not discredit the idea that St. Augustine
espoused Sola Scriptura, then I don't know what does!
And we continue:
JW> Now before too many of our Roman Catholic readers blow a gasket,
I well know that Augustine asserted the Church has a role in preserving
the truth, and especially when Augustine had to struggle against Donatism
(and the influence of Cyprian), he appealed to "tradition." Yet, he did
not appeal to tradition as Rome now teaches it, and did not deny sola scriptura
so as to present a doctrine of sola ecclesia [Editor: An essay on
the alleged doctrine of Sola Ecclesia will appear soon here on "Catholic
Insight."]. Note his own words:
SR> "You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that
God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous
errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any
way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch,
this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers
from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would
not have anything to touch but would have something to read" (In Epistolam
Johannis tractus, 2).
The issue is not, and never has been, the validity of "tradition" as
a subordinate authority. I above cited from the 1689 Baptist Confession
of Faith. It is a "subordinate standard," a "tradition" if you wish, that
gives expression to certain aspects of divine truth. But it is not revelational,
nor is it infallible. It is subordinate to Scripture, and liable to correction
on the basis thereof. The Lord Jesus gave us the example in Matthew 15:
we are to subordinate all traditions, even those that men claim are "divine"
in origin, to the ultimate authority of Scripture. In this we agree with
Basil of Caesarea:
WP> James is clutching at a straw if he sees Augustine downplaying the
role of the Sacred Traditions and the authority of the Church when it is
the very same Church that so carefully preserved the very Scriptures that,
in James' mind, replaces the authority of the Church! Of course Scripture
"lays down a firm foundation ...against treacherous errors"!
It is a tremendous
JW> The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said
by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject
that which is foreign. (Moralia, 72:1)
WP> This is something new for the Church? Has it not always been
that the great test of any doctrine is the "two feet" principle I have
outlined above?
JW> And likewise with Cyril of Jerusalem:
I note in passing that such citations, likewise, refute Mr. Ray's assertion
that Luther was rejecting the "teachings of the Fathers of the first centuries."
In reality, it is Mr. Ray who has abandoned them in his embracing of doctrines
such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception.
WP> Joe Gallegos to the rescue once again! James White brought
up good ol' Cyril of Jerusalem in his debate with Joe, and here is how
it went:
--- START QUOTE ---
JW>
Cyril----
"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that
only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been
built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot
read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by
want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul
may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith
in a few lines.
This is the tradition you are referring to, and I agree, that is what
Athanasius is referring to. A tradition comprised of that which has
been "collected out of all the Scripture" as said above. Yes, that's
what he is alking about. I'm glad we now agree on that.
JG> Yet you are missing a very vital point here, James--tradition as
found in its various monuments such as Church Councils, the faith that
has been transmitted from generation to generation coming from the Apostles,
the faith expounded by the fathers of the Church in their writings, the
catechesis of the Church, the faith expressed in the various Church liturgies
etc... ARE PART of the RULE of faith for Athanasius in order to determine
the 'sense' and 'orthodox' intepretation of Sacred Scripture in its
fullness. Sola Scriptura says that ALL one needs to determine the doctrines
contained therein is the Scriptures alone--no need for tradition or Church.
Even Cyril denied the formal insufficiency of the Scripture since he
writes above:
'But in learning the faith and in professing it, acquire it and keep
ONLY, which is now delivered to thee BY THE Church, and which has been
built up strongly out of the Scriptures.' Cat V:12
Note that Cyril didn't say ALL we need for 'learning the faith' is the
SCRIPTURES ALONE but included those teachings that have been authoritatively
handed down such as we have in the Creeds (a monument of tradition). In
addition, Cyril does not separate the Scripture, tradition and Church.
Regarding teachings not contained in the Scriptures and the authority
of the Church we read:
'Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the
Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW' Cat IV:33 Granted the
Church was still grappling with the issue of the canon of but the point
is that
JW> JW> "In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith,
not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures.
Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments.
Even to me, who tells you these things, do not give ready belief,
unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which
I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever
reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures." --St. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca.
350)
JW> JG> Good Old St. Cyril....What makes you think that the rule of
faith for St. Cyril only involves Scripture, James?
JW> Oh, I don't know, Joe....I guess the point that is very clear to
me from the above is, "Test what you are taught by Scripture." [Editor:
But he does NOT say: test what you are taught by your own, fallible interpretation
of Scripture.]Doesn't sound like someone who believes in the infallibility
of the magisterium, but rather the infallibility of the Scriptures.
JW> JG> "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and
keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, AND which
has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures" Cat V:12 So
let's not put Sola Scriptura in the mouths of the Fathers...
JW>I would like to thank you, Joe, for bringing this passage up, Just
as this series started, with your citation of Irenaeus, so it ends with
further confirmation of the truth of sola scriptura. Why do I say
this? Well, again, the mere reading of the passage you cite IN CONTEXT
proves the exact same point I made at the beginning regarding the definition
of "tradition" in Irenaeus. Please note the citation you provided
in full:
JW> But in learning the Faith
and in professing it, acquire and keep
JG> Again...James you are ignoring the use of the conjunction 'AND'
here. You are trying to insert a wedge between the Scriptures and
Church's Tradition for St. Cyril. Cyril does not admit any interpretation
apart from tradition or Church. Cyril interprets Scripture in light of
the faith which has been delivered to the Church; IOW Cyril's rule of faith
consists of Scripture and the Church's tradition. Cyril makes use of both....
Like the rest of the fathers, Tradition is that faith that is 1)held by
the Church universal 2)a faith that was was transmitted from the
Apostles and entrusted to the Church and transmitted from generation to
generation via catechesis...an authority alongside the Scripture...
JW> There are many things to note here, Joe. First, the
"faith" being discussed is merely the creed, just as it was with Irenaeus
when he spoke of "traditions." There is nothing in the Creed that
is not found in Scripture. Secondly, Cyril says that the creed is
merely the....
JG> Exactly--and the creeds are one of the many 'touchstones' of Tradition!
In addition, there isn't anything in the Creed not found in Sacred Tradition
either...
Nevertheless there is something confessed in the Nicean creed which
you wouldn't hold onto but Cyril (and the rest of the Fathers) would, i.e.:
'We acknowledge ONE BAPTISM for the forgiveness of sins'
Please tell me, James, who is affirming this touchstone of Tradition
such as the Nicean Creed as authoritative, binding and part of the rule
of faith--Cyril or James White a proponent of Sola Scriptura?
JW> Where is your oral tradition, Joe?
JG> James... the oral tradition originated with the Apostles--as did
the written tradition...both were handed down and entrusted to Christ's
Church...the oral tradition that was not written down was passed onto the
Church from generation to generation via various ministrations of the Church
The various =monuments= to this original deposit of faith coming from the
Apostles that was not written down is found in such things as the writings
of the Church Fathers, Creeds, Liturgy, Archeological artifacts, the faith
of the living Church, Church Councils etc...
In sum, Cyril holds on to traditions such as the canon of the Sacred
Scriptures and traditions such as Creeds...that is why Cyril finds (all
over his writings) in Scripture the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We
read:
'Having learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming
bread is NOT bread, though sensible to taste, BUT the BODY of Christ; and
that the seeming wine is NOT wine, though the taste will have it so, but
the BLOOD of Christ..' Cat XXII:9
Where did Cyril learn these things and where did he get his assurance
from?
--- END OF QUOTE --- [From Joe Gallegos: CYRIL.TXT, part of Fathers.zip]
JW> The main element of Mr. Ray's misrepresentation of sola scriptura
can be seen in just this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists.
What do I mean by this? 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?
WP> Ah yes, "enscripturation"! That last time I discussed this
with James, I believed I asked him about where was the authority and sole
source of faith in those days. I forget my exact words, but if, say, ten
years after Pentecost, whence came the authority? Where was it to
be found a source of faith? It certainly was not contained in the
New Testament, as it simply had not been written yet! This is my
simplistic approach, I suppose, and it certainly can get me into trouble
at times, but if it is true that the apostles had that authority, and that
Christ established his church, is not that church (the body headed by the
apostles and their successors) that has that authority? ALL of the
Word was oral! Not one scrap on papyrus!
JW> But immediately the Roman Catholic apologist makes a fatal logical
error: "Well, if there was a time when God's Word was orally transmitted,
why can't it be today?" Such assumes the very thing Rome won't ever dare
step out and prove: that her self-proclaimed "traditions" are in fact inspired
revelation that has existed since the days of the Apostles. Indeed, many
Roman apologists deny that tradition is in fact theopneustas: God-breathed
(2 Timothy 3:16).
WP> Who...me? Well Steve, do you make this claim? JW> Some of "Tradition" may be inspired (i.e., Scripture), but many
are uncomfortable having to defend the idea that "oral tradition" is in
fact revelation and is inspired.
WP> I know of at least one person who is "uncomfortable " with it!
His name is James White! I know of no Catholic apologist who is uncomfortable
at all with defending the idea that the oral Word, (which IS that very
Sacred Tradition) as given to the apostles by Christ, is indeed, inspired!
JW> If the Roman apologist [Editor: See how much White likes
to use "Roman" instead of "Catholic."] wishes to say, "Well, there was
a time when God-breathed revelation was orally transmitted prior to the
enscripturization [sic] of that revelation," that's fine. But to go beyond
this statement to, "And that situation continues today, so that our traditions
are equal with
WP> In other words, James comes as close to agreeing with the idea that
the authority of the Church (Matt 16:19) did indeed go poof and departed
a now powerless, non-relevant church once the New Testament was written,
collated, the inspired writings separated from the inspired (I wonder how
they knew that?), and after centuries of careful copying from one monastery
to the other, and when finally that same Church declared it closed, finished,
no more inspired writings allowed, the Church strips herself of her authority
she has enjoyed for at least 300 + years, all because we now have the WORD
all written-down nice and pat!
JW> 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. [For more
information on this topic, see The Roman Catholic Controversy, pp. 55-101.]
WP> And now, finally, we get to the meat of James' Rebuttal! Well
Steve, if you did not feel defeated before, where James got involved in
attempting to prove Sola Scriptura to you, you sure ought to now, right?
JW> The Bereans and sola scriptura. [Editor: Oh, that's right.
That's what Ray's article was all about.] Mr. Ray's article has a text
block that reads as follows: "The Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the
tradition of the Apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as
an 'extension' of the Torah."
JW> The article attempts to undermine the use of Acts 17:11 as a "proof-text"
for sola scriptura by arguing that in point of fact the Bereans did not
operate on a basis consistent with Protestant claims regarding the supremacy
of Scripture. Mr. Ray states that the Catholic response to this passage
has often been "mediocre." But, he claims, "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."
Such is a pretty tall claim! Does Mr. Ray succeed in his task? Let's start
by looking at the passage in question:
(Acts 17:10-12) "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by
JW> One of the key phrases is "these were more noble-minded than those
in Thessalonica," so Ray goes back and looks at what had happened there:
(Acts 17:1-9) "Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia,
JW> Now, before we look at Mr. Ray's ingenious argument, let's examine
the passage and see what Luke has to tell us. We see that Paul, as was
his custom, went into the synagogue as the first missions "starting point"
upon arriving in Thessalonica. This was his custom everywhere he went,
for he would find there a place where the Scriptures were known and hence
a common
What follows is not overly relevant to our inquiry here, aside from
the fact that an uproar ensues, and Paul and Silas are forced out of town,
leading them to Berea. In contrast with the jealous Jews who had stirred
up trouble, Luke tells us that those in Berea were more "noble-minded."
Rather than stirring up trouble, they eagerly listened to the message of
Paul and Silas. At this point, however, we need to look closely at the
text. The term "noble minded" is eugenesteroi, which is the adjectival
comparative form.
WP> Let me get this straight: Is James assuming here that the
Berean Jews did not have a "Sacred Tradition" of their own that was not
always compared with Scripture, which by the way, (not you guys but others
who may ultimately read this) was the Old Testament? And certainly
we know that these very same Jews knew of the predictions of a Messiah
that was to come. Now, here comes this wild-eyed, probably disheveled man
(Paul) with a very tall tale of "the Messiah that has come!" As I
think about this in my natural tendency to be skeptical, I would probably
have been like the Thessalonians!
JW> Getting Around Acts 17:11. So how does Mr. Ray get around this passage?
He begins by asserting that the Bereans actually condemn the position of
sola scriptura! How? Let's see. He begins by stating, upon citing Acts
17:1-9, " The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing
him, they became jealous that others believed." Yet, where does the text
say this? The text says nothing about rejecting Paul's message. Luke says,
"But the Jews, becoming jealous
SR> "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."
JW> Where does Luke speak of their comparing Paul's message with the
Old Testament and concluding he was wrong?
WP> Oops, wait a minute here, just what does James think Paul and the
Jewish scholars were doing in the Thessalonian synagogue in their "reasoning
from the scriptures" anyway? It is no accident that the incidents at Thessalonica
are closely followed by the events in Beroea, where Paul is doing "as was
customed" there as well. It is quite obvious that Paul and the Thessalonians
were indeed checking the Scriptures to compare them to what Paul said,
just as at Beroea!
JW> Luke [the author of the book of Acts] gives only one reason for
their rejection: jealousy. This was nothing new. This is not the first
time Paul had encountered the jealousy of the Jews.
WP> So what? There are many reasons for the Thessalonians rejecting
Paul and his teachings, be it a fright that their way of life is threatened
by a new order (as in, "It's so nice to dream of a redeemer savior coming
some day, but please, not today!"), a call to abandon a slack in their
worshipping of God and in their sinful accesses, and yes, Jealousy, perhaps
brought on by all of those things? Or perhaps it was just plain skepticism,
something I would be guilty of! In any case, it can certainly be
said that
Paul in Thessalonica and Beroea [Acts 17:1-15] :
(The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p.754, article 92)
Please note the last part of the final sentence of that quote.
Even in Beroea, there was an "outbreak of persecution under Jewish instigation."
What that does is complete the perfect coupling of the two experiences,
at Thessalonica and at Bereoa. [Latter part of Acts 17:13]
And yet it would seem that James wants to separate the two events, such
that the "discussions with them from the Scriptures [Acts 17:2 NAB] at
Thessalonica is somehow different from the "...willingness [to] examine...the
scriptures daily' [Acts 17:11 NAB] at Beroea.
JW> I certainly don't get the idea that Paul was defeated in public
debate on the issue of the witness of the Old Testament to the Messiah,
Jesus Christ.
WP> Oh, how non-sequitur for James to say this. I don't
think this is what you were thinking about at all, Steve. Being rejected
is not a personal defeat when we see nothing but rejection and not refutation
here. But perhaps James is already thinking that he has personally
defeated you here?
JW> Why is Mr. Ray intent upon reading into the action of the Thessalonians
this idea of comparing the message of Paul to the Scriptures and finding
it wanting?
WP> Does James think you are putting down Paul here because the Thessalonians
rejected him? In any case, completely non -sequitur.
Again, perhaps he smells a complete victory in his refutation of
your article. Balderdash! JW> Because it is his position that the Thessalonians were actually
believers in sola scriptura, while the Bereans were not! How does he come
to this tremendously surprising conclusion? First, he attempts to draw
a distinction between the Thessalonians and the Bereans as to their make-up:
SR> "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."
JW> Everyone realizes that the Bereans were not Christians when Paul
and Silas first arrived. Then again, neither were the Thessalonians. In
fact, the make-up of the two communities was the same: Hellenistic Jews,
with God-fearers also in the congregation in the synagogue. There is no
meaningful difference in the ethnic make up of the synagogue in Thessalonica
and the one in Berea. If there was no doctrine of sola scriptura in Berea,
nor was there one in Thessalonica.
WP> By the same reasoning, if the two communities were the same, why
then did Paul get rejected by one but accepted by the other? The
fact that the two communities of Hellenistic Jews were for all intents
and purposes equal, then there must be a reason for the diverse results
of Paul's preaching to them. What in the world is it? Could
it be that the former had a little
JW> He must be consistent in using the same standards for both, for
he certainly makes no attempt at substantiating his implicit assertion
that there was some difference between the two groups.
WP> This mystifies me, as I certainly did not read that in the article.
So far, James is at his usual form. His response to your article,
Steve, does not address the meat of your suggestions, but rather attacks
it from the peripheral.
JW> Now, Mr. Ray goes on to expand upon his claim about the Jews:
SR> "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."
JW> Mr. Ray's understanding of Matthew 23 goes far beyond anything that
particular passage can substantiate. The seat of Moses was simply the seat
upon which a person sat to read the Scriptures in the synagogue. But he
is right that the Jews had a great body of tradition: and the Lord Jesus
taught us to subjugate those traditions to the Scriptures in Matthew 15:1-9,
SR> "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)."
WP> Steve, there is not so much of a hint that you seriously believed
that the Thessalonians were Sola Scriptura, making the supposition that
If they could be tagged then which tag is the best one? Like the
Thessalonians, the early fathers often show that a rejected "Catholic doctrine"
was suggested in the early church (the early rumblings of a possibly heretical
idea), but the Bible does not specifically teach it, it was rejected (even
the slightest implications are not found). Could I then say that
the early
JW> One's breath is taken away by the tremendous leap taken here. Where
does Luke say a word about the Thessalonian Jews carefully examining Paul's
teaching on the basis of sola scriptura and, as a result, rejecting it?
[Editor: Mr. White, the two passages are Acts 17:2 vs. Acts 17:11.]
WP> And here, James makes my case! Steve, is it not a strong implication
that the Thessalonians studied the Scriptures similarly to the Bereans?
(Per my quote from the The New Jerome Bible Commentary.) When
it gets down to the nitty gritty, Protestants will always insist the Bible
must be as specific as a last will and testament from a lawyer, especially
if it is to protect a tightly-held doctrine. Least I forget, I again
point out that the account of the Bereans that follow that of the Thessalonians
is for a very good reason--the contrast between the two groups. I
can very well be secure in my feelings that the Thessalonians studied the
Scriptures just as carefully as the Bereans did! But by some "hardness
of the heart," Paul's explanation of the gospels were rejected.
JW> Of course, he says nothing of the sort. Instead, he says that Paul
operated on the basis of the supremacy of Scripture in preaching to the
Thessalonians, and as a result, he was successful in convincing some of
the truthfulness of his message. But others, acting out of jealousy, started
a riot. Nothing is said at all about their taking three weeks to deliberate
and come to some kind of scriptural conclusion! This is purely wishful
thinking on Mr. Ray's part. Sadly, he then attempts to provide some kind
of basis for this tremendous leap by citing Kistemaker's work on Acts.
Yet, if one reads the source cited, one finds the exact opposite of Ray's
own assertions:
WP> What difference does it make that Paul is rejected out of jealousy,
when the final result is that rejection? Jealousy is the result of
a multitude of sins that can certainly rule the hearts of men.
SR> "Paul follows the example set by Jesus, who opened the Scriptures
for the two men on the way to Emmaus and for the disciples in the upper
room. Jesus showed them from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms that
the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46).
The term exp1aining comes from the Greek verb meaning, 'to open.' Paul
opens the Word and sets the explanation of the messianic prophecies before
his listeners. By appealing to the Scriptures, he has a common basis to
prove that the Messiah has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ
of Nazareth.
JW> There is certainly nothing supportive of Mr. Ray's thesis in these
words from Kistemaker. In fact, just the opposite is true. Kistemaker is
not even here speaking specifically of the Thessalonian Jews, but of the
Jews Paul encountered in his ministry in general. The reason Mr. Ray does
not provide a reference to a commentary speaking of the Thessalonians coming
to a
WP> Now, I don't have Kistemaker that Steve quotes from, but from what
Steve quotes, it makes perfect sense. It is obvious that Steve is
establishing the type of arguments Paul would have used to convince the
Jews that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah that was predicted in the
Old testament. I could care less what Listermaker says, as what we see
is the prototype
SR> "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."
JW> It is simply amazing that a person can go from the jealousy of the
Jews to the idea that they were crypto-Protestants practicing sola scriptura
and therefore missing the truth of Paul's message! We are given no references
to scholarly sources here, either, for the same reason: such a conclusion
has no connection with the text.
WP> No, James, don't go putting words in Steve's mouth concerning the
Jews of Thessalonica. But then, are they not perhaps a good prototype of
what was to come? The only common parallel we have of this situation
are the Christians of today. But let's consider the Jews in general
who rejected the preaching of Paul and the remaining apostles. All
of them had the Old Testament to compare with what the apostles preached
about the Messiah, who meets all of the requirements of the Old Testament,
still rejected him. I am not sure I would call them Sola Scriptura
adherents because I believe they also had a
JW> But remember that Mr. Ray says the Bereans actually denied sola
scriptura. How is this? Let's listen:
SR> "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
JW> Does a "perusal" of grammars and commentaries give us such an indication?
Let's start with one that Mr. Ray has already cited, that being the commentary
of Kistemaker:
WP> Let us make it clear what Steve is talking about here before we
go on. Both the Thessalonians and the Bereans studied the Scripture with
Paul! So it is obvious that being "open-minded" has nothing to do with
the Bereans studying the Scriptures! But then, I almost forgot:
only Bible-reading Protestants are "open-minded," right? SR> "Noble-mindedness. Luke compares the worshipers at the Berean synagogue
with those at Thessalonica and praises the Bereans. Paul develops a close
and loving relationship with the Thessalonians (see I Thess. 2:11); nevertheless,
in respect to noble-mindedness, the Bereans excel. They are more open to
the truth of God's Word than the people of Thessalonica are."
JW> The reason for the openness of the Bereans lies in their receptivity
to and love for God's Word.
WP> What? Does this really mean that the Thessalonians loved "God's
Word" less then the Bereans? How do we really know that? We
know that they studied those very same Scriptures from what I have already
discussed before, but to isolate the "open mindedness" of the Bereans to
simply the love of the Scriptures is a bit too restrictive, and in fact,
a statement of personal belief that has no basis in fact. Again,
only [Protestant] Bible-readers are "open-minded!" Balderdash once
again!
JW> For them, the Scriptures are much more than a written scroll or
book that conveys a divine message. They use the Old Testament as the touchstone
of truth, so that when Paul proclaims the gospel they immediately go to
God's written Word for verification. They do so, Luke adds, with great
eagerness. Note well, the adjective "great" indicates that they treasure
the Word of God. Luke ascribes the same diligence to the Bereans as Peter
does to the Old Testament prophets, who intently and diligently searched
the Word and inquired into its meaning (I Peter 1:10). The Bereans open
the Scriptures and with ready minds learn that Jesus has fulfilled the
messianic prophecies.
WP> The implication here is that the Thessalonians think less of the
Scriptures then the Bereans do! This is amazing! How in the
world do you know this, James? I once visited modern Thessalonica,
and I saw a strong Christian community, both Orthodox and Catholic (and
probably other Christians), so perhaps something stuck! I think this
Kistemaker fellow is giving the Thessalonians a bad name!
JW> Day by day, the Bereans examine the Scriptures to see whether the
teachings of Paul and Silas accord with God's written Word. They do so
not from unbelief and doubt but from honest analysis and eagerness to learn
the message of God's revelation. Although Luke fails to mention that God
opened the hearts of the Bereans (compare 16:14), in verse 12 he records
that "many of the Jews" believe the gospel. These people believe because
they know God's Word. The situation in Berea differs from that in Thessalonica,
where "some of the Jews were persuaded" (v.4).
WP> And how in the world do we know that the Thessalonians were any
less diligent in studying the Scriptures as well? The only thing
Kistermaker seems to have going for him is the fact that the Thessalonians
rejected Paul and his followers. It does not automatically follow that
they studied the Scriptures any less arduously then the Bereans.
JW> How about Richard Longenecker in the Expositor's Bible Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), p. 471?
WP> But it does not follow that the Thessalonians studied the Scriptures
any less then their Berean brothers! That is what you are implying,
right, James? Is it just possible that the Thessalonians might have
studied the Scriptures more deligently (but culpably) simply because of
the many little imperfections we all have in a resulting "jealousy " that
was the ultimate motivation? As you can see, I can speculate on Scripture
as well as anyone!
JW> And we note the words of Ivor Powell in The Amazing Acts (Grand
Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1987), pp. 295-296:
WP> Again, what we see is interesting speculation on the part of a Protestant
writer that favors the idea of the exclusivity of Scripture over the spoken
Word. Steve, I see a pattern here that you might have already detected,
and it is something that only converts see clearly. As a Protestant,
what was the emphasis for your "source of inspiration" to know what being
a Christian
JW> And what of the very commentary Mr. Ray cites, that of I. Howard
Marshall? On page 280 we read:
SR> "The account of Paul's reception at Beroea is the classical description
of a more well-disposed and open-minded (RSV more noble) response by the
Jews to the gospel. They were zealous to hear what Paul had to say, and
so they met with him daily (and not merely on the sabbath). Nor did they
accept what he said thoughtlessly and uncritically, but they themselves
examined the Scriptures to see whether the case which Paul developed from
them (as in 17:2ff.) was sound. Here was no mere emotional response to
the gospel, but one based on intellectual conviction."
WP> Steve, in emphasis, I also add the fact that Paul's gospel was oral
only at that time.
JW> And A.T. Robertson commented:
WP> There is a serious problem here with what A. T. Robertson seems
to imply and what James White wants to perpetuate. It implies that
the Jews had no central authority for determining such things--and in fact
and unless someone could show where I might be in error--the Jews were
indeed without a central head. Was the Temple in Jerusalem the "Vatican"
of Judaism in
JW> ...and Mr. Ray is simply desperate to avoid the plain meaning of
the text. This error is then compounded by his errant belief that sola
scriptura is somehow contradicted by the acceptance of "new revelation,"
as if sola scriptura is meant to be applied during times of revelation
rather than being a normative rule for the Church.
WP> Steve, don't loose heart here! JW> He writes:
SR> "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)."
JW> In reality, the Bereans accepted the message of Christ because it
was consistent with the Old Testament revelation.
WP> Hummmm.....I don't see Steve rejecting this idea at all. Looks
good to me as well.
JW> Even introducing "canon" issues here is to continue the tremendous
misuse of this passage already begun in attempting to turn the Thessalonians
into crypto-Protestants and the Bereans into crypto-Catholics. And we note
in passing (as Wayne Grudem notes in his Systematic Theology, pp.
84-85) that 2 Peter 3:16 refers to writings, not to vague and undefinable
"oral
WP> James, might I suggest that instead of you thinking that Steve makes
the Thessalonian Jews as "crypto-Protestants," may I suggest that instead
you have Protestants turned into "crypto-Thessalonians"? Far fetched?
Oh, I agree, but it is no more ridiculous then your assertion here!
In fact, I will go so far as to see the actions of the Jews of Beroea as
"proto-Catholic Church!" After all, do not we Catholics claim that
Holy Mother Church has "two feet" in the testing of doctrine as the existence
in both Sacred Tradition and Holy Writ? I know you don't agree with
this, but this is what we claim and perhaps an area that you might want
to refute if you can.
SR> "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."
JW> Mr. Ray would do well to deal with the criticism of Jamnia found
in Beckwith's fine work, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1985). But in any case, we have here
yet another straw-man, an argument based upon either misrepresentation
or ignorance of the issues at hand. The Thessalonians were not noble minded
because they rejected the message preached out of jealousy.
WP> But just don't forget that they also studied the Scriptures, similarly
as the Bereans did. Please don't make the claim that a "failure"
to do this resulted in the ultimate decision to reject Paul and his teaching.
JW> The Bereans were noble minded because they listened to the message
and tested it by Scripture. Any attempt to read into the passage some concept
of "extra-biblical oral tradition" or to read out of the passage the plain
supremacy of Scripture, is yet another example of how Roman Catholic apologists
are at a real loss when it comes to engaging in serious exegesis of the
Scriptures.
WP> And likewise did the Thessalonians, and yet they rejected Paul.
But concerning exegesis of Scripture, I cannot really comment, since I
am not an expert, but--boy, O boy--I can still use my noggin and the absolutely
best exegesis Protestants have not yet discovered! My opinion, of
course, but it counts for naught, since I am not a professor of theology
or whatever. What is my point here? Simply that such a non-sequitur
comment not only serves to attempt to diminish the integrity of your
opponent, but instead, diminishes your own stature and respect in the apologetic
community.
JW> But in the midst of this misrepresentation, Mr. Ray stumbles upon
a truth without seemingly, knowing it. Sensing that he has done nothing
to escape the simple fact that the Bereans tested the claimed apostolic
message for consistency by Scripture and without an infallible Magisterium,
he attempts to explain their action:
SR> "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
JW> Note the phrase, "to confirm additional revelation." Here you have
individuals going directly to Scripture and testing a message for consistency.
Yet, when I do the very same thing with Roman theology, I'm told I'm engaging
in "private interpretation" and that I am endangering my soul.
WP> Please, James, I know of no one who accuses you of "endangering
your soul" other than other Protestants who disagree with your views.
If a Catholic said this, then we have a Catholic who must be careful in
such accusations as any Christian must be. I have no idea just where
your heart is as only the Lord God can know. But I want to address this
thing called an "infallible Magisterium" you are hung up on. May
I suggest that this is possibly one of the things Christ wanted to include
in His New Covenant that continues, as the Old Covenant of the Old Testament
concludes? [Editor: I can well imagine that Christ did not want
to have a mess of different doctrines, but rather "one body..., one Lord,
one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:4-5).] After all, where do you see
God, in His original Covenant with Abraham and Moses, give such awesome
power to the religion of Israel as He gives to his new Church in Matt 16:18-19?
Now, I know you are sick and tired of having that part of the New Testament
quoted to you again, so I will not do it, but please search for me and
see if such power of authority is given as not only in that famous quote,
but also in Matt 18:18, John 20:22-23 (the power to forgive or retain sins),
John 21:15-20 (the final commissioning of Peter, and Peter alone),
and finally, the last command before He ascended, Matt 28:19, the role
the apostles and His Church is to play "until the end of the age" [NAB].
No, the Bereans probably did not have that "infallible magisterium"
on the occasion of Acts 17, but they sure did join that body who certainly
did! They became one of many early Christians, in a universal Church,
charged with a mission, empowered with an authority that was not contested
(seriously and by early heresies) until the times of Luther--or was it
Wyclif, Calvin, Wesley, or whoever? Before then, it went essentially unchallenged....
JW> For all his attempts, Mr. Ray has utterly failed to overthrow the
plain teaching of the passage: the Bereans did not seek for some "oral
tradition" nor an "infallible magisterium."
WP> Steve never claimed that they did, but rather, it came to them!
Paul came to Beroea, not the other way around. They heard what Paul
had to say, and they tested it against Scripture, and found it true!
They therefore accepted it, became Christians [ie., baptized] and, by golly,
participated in that very same "infallible magisterium" you are so worried
about!
JW> They allowed the Scriptures to function just as the Baptist Confession
of Faith says they should. Mr. Ray won't admit it, but one thing is plain
as day: the Bereans did not believe in sola ecclesia as he does: they did
not look for an infallible Church with an infallible magisterium to tell
them what was, and what was not, Scripture and truth. [Indeed, we note
with some level of irony that from the Roman Catholic position, an infallible
definition of the canon was still 1500 years in the future!]
WP> James, I will repeat what Steve has already said: The Bereans were
Hellenistic Jews, not Christians when Paul came to them. Did they
believe in a "sola Ecclesia" at that time? NO! Did they have
any idea what an "infallible magisterium" was? NO! Did they
believe this when they became Christians? Most probably not, simply because
while we have the Scripture,
JW> Finally, Mr. Ray follows the old line of misusing 2 Thessalonians
2:15:
SR> "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)."
JW> Paul nowhere speaks of "apostolic Tradition" in his writings. In
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul speaks of his preaching the gospel to the Thessalonians
orally and by letter, nothing more. It is a tremendous stretch to assert
that we have here a basis for some nebulous, ever-changing "oral tradition"
that eventually gives the basis for such doctrines as papal infallibility
and the Bodily Assumption of Mary. [Editor: Please see my essay,
"Explaining away 2
Thessalonians 2:15," which refutes James White right there.]
WP> And I would not blame Paul for not speaking of it, as he probably
did not fully understand it either! Neither did the infant Church.
If you were to go back and discuss the Trinity with him, he probably would
be scratching his head, wondering what in the world you were talking about!
I daresay that even his own writings, if you were to suggest to him, would
end up being declared divinely inspired and a part of Scripture, he would
probably run you off!
JW>In Conclusion [Editor: YIPPIE! Let's conclude!!]. After
a decade of trying, I still await a serious interaction in writing
WP> JW> After a while, one begins to wonder why it is that the doctrine
cannot be discussed openly and honestly. Why do we continuously have to
point out basic error after basic error as we have above? If Rome's claims
are so strong and so overwhelming (certainly a claim Rome's defenders make
all the time), why the constant misrepresentation? If we had to continuously
misrepresent Rome's doctrines, would we not, by so doing, be demonstrating
that we do not have solid answers to her claims?
WP> James, this is too much! Now that I have rubbed your
nose in an obvious refutation of your position, I have yet to see any convincing
argument from you that will sway people from believing otherwise.
Sola Scriptura does not make any more sense then to state that we
can dismiss the Supreme Court of the United States, and all elected members
of Congress and simply say, "The Constitution of the United States is sufficient
for us." We can govern ourselves just as well without that "body."
JW> I do hope that Mr. Ray has misrepresented his former faith purely
out of ignorance, not out of malice. And if that is the case, and I truly
hope it is, I hope he will reconsider his pledge of allegiance to an authoritarian
system that has led him so far from the truths of the Scriptures.
WP> I have all the faith in the world that Steve has indeed, "come home"
to the truth, the authority, and that body of Christians that can truly
say that their origins trace themselves to the very Church founded by Christ
who promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt
16:18).
God's infinite blessings to all who read this. Holy Spirit, guide
us!
PAX,
But there is more. Before he discusses the main issues of the
Thessolonians and the Bereans, there is more damage James attempts to do,
to your discredit:
Ray can speak of the "fifteenth century" is difficult to understand.
But this is just the beginning of the errors. Martin Luther didn't invent
the doctrine, of course. Even if Ray disputes every single statement from
the Fathers that I have provided in written sources (see my chapter in
Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, 1995, Soli Deo Gloria
Publishers, pp. 27-62), and rejects every Waldensian statement concerning
the doctrine, he would still have to deal with the plain words of John
Wyclif, who obviously believed in the doctrine and put it into practice.
Such would place the doctrine, even under such an artificial construction
as being the invention of Wyclif, in the fourteenth century, more than
a century before Luther. If Mr. Ray encountered a Protestant who, in discussing
Roman Catholic dogmatic formulations, misidentified the source of such
formulations, and misplaced the dates by centuries, would he not have reason
to question the validity of that person's conclusions?
Holy Spirit." I wonder if James will object to this definition of Sola
Scriptura? So I comment: So what? How does all this effect
his argument against your article other then an attempt to discredit you?
of Faith: [Editor: And one might want to remark that before
the 1600's, there were no Baptists.]
The sufficiency of Scripture is clearly asserted, but it is a sufficiency
carefully defined. No one claims the Bible is an omnipedia of all knowledge.
Nor does anyone claim the Bible can tell you, specifically, what color
fabric to place upon the pews of your new church building. [Editor:
Ha, just wait till the next denomination comes up and finds that passage!
:)] But all things that are "necessary" for God's "own glory, man's salvation,
faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in
Holy
Scripture." How like the words of Augustine:
"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For
Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser
than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to
expound to you the words of the Teacher" (De bono viduitatis, 2).
Note well the words of Augustine: he says that the Scriptures fix "the
rule for our doctrine." The Latin of the passage reads, "Scriptura nostrę
doctrinę regulam figit." Protestants say the Scriptures are the sole
infallible regula fidei, the rule of faith. It seems Augustine believed
the same.
as "one leg" of "a man, " [the Church] whose feet must stand
in two places when determining doctrine and the truth; The "other
foot" must rest in the Sacred Traditions of the Church. Joe Gallegos
said this somewhere in one of his files and I have been unable to find
it, but in any case, he has a marvelous rebuttal to the same James White
in his Fathers.zip file, and I am going to quote from it here (Joe, this
has got to be deja vu for you here!):
Again, private intepretation is not in the vocabulary of St. Augustine,
hence St. Augustine is foreign to the formal aspect of Sola Scriptura.
The testimonies from St. Augustine are legion affirming that Scripture,
Tradition and Church are inseparable as opposed to Sola Scriptura (i.e.Bible
and one's private interpretation to obtain the truth). I will end with
the words of St. Augustine in his work dealing with the Manichean heresy:
'For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the
knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to
know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still
without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in
Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope,
enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me,
beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after
his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present
EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:--`Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus
Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words
from the perennial and living fountain.` Now, if you please, patiently
give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichues to be an apostle of
Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know
that it is
my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore
I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do
not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you
promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to believe
what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and
will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus.But should you meet
with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him
were he to say, I do not believe? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the
gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those
on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not
to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?'
he said: "This is my Body." Indeed he was carrying that Body in his
own hands'
Ennar. In Ps 33
"And if anyone seek for divine authority in this matter, though what
is held by he whole Church, and not as instituted by Councils, but as a
matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by
apostolic authority...." --On Baptism 24
private discernment of the canon. We read:
received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive."
Fathers, upholding Church, Scripture and Tradition as opposed to the
Scriptures Alone.
traditional teaching of the Church and not his private interpretation
he writes:
regeneration, purged all past sin by the washing of baptism.' What
could be more clear than the judgement of the Apostolic See?"
stretch for James to see the Sacred Tradition taking a back seat in
this role. This notion is thoroughly trounced by the above
devastating quote I provided.
If a certain novel doctrine is not found in the Sacred Traditions of
the Church and not closely implied in Scriptures, it fails. Likewise
with a given "interpretation" of Scripture (such as Sola Scriptura, as
a matter of fact) likewise fails to show up on Holy Traditions of the Church,
it fails also. Even if it seems to have "two feet" it is certain
that the doctrine is exposed to the close scrutiny for years, or better,
centuries before it is declared as doctrine.
"In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least
part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray
by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things,
do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the
proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe
is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures."
(Catechetical Lectures 4:17)
This summary I wish you both to commit to memory with all diligence
among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the
memory upon our heart...So for the present listen while I simply say the
Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation
our of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles
of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important
points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching
of the Faith.
And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches,
so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of
godliness in he Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren,
as hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them
on the table of your heart" (NPNF II 7:32). Cathechetical Lectures
5:32
Cyril recognized the authority of the Church to define HIS canon (which
is a teaching not contained within the Scriptures themselves)... [emphasis
is Joe Gallego's WMP]
_Catechetical Lectures_ 4:17.
JW> that only, which is now
delivered to thee by the Church, and
JW> which has been built
up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For
Cat V:12
Now, does James think that the enscripturation process means that for
the time being, the Church and her apostles and successors had this thing
called the sole source of faith? But then when the enscripturation
process was completed, does all of the source of faith shift to the written
word? Is the Church then disenfranchised from that point on? [Editor:
And if so, where does it say that?]
Scripture in authority" is to leap out of the realm of both scriptural
teaching and historical reality. It is a self-evident fact that a doctrine
such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary has no historical connection to the
Apostles themselves. To make it an inspired "tradition" is to say revelation
is still being given (a position even Rome denies).
As Rush Limbaugh says: "I demonstrate absurdity by being absurd!"
Welcome to the debating tactics of one James White!
night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue
of the
Jews. [11] Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,
for
they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures
daily
to see whether these things were so. [12] Therefore many of them believed,
along with a number of prominent Greek women and men."
they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
[2] And
according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths
reasoned
with them from the Scriptures, [3] explaining and giving evidence that
the
Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This
Jesus
whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ." [4] And some of them were
persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the
God-
fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. [5] But the Jews,
becoming
jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed
a mob
and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they
were
seeking to bring them out to the people. [6] When they did not find
them,
they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities,
shouting, "These men who have upset the world have come here also;
[7] and
Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of
Caesar,
saying that there is another king, Jesus." [8] They stirred up the
crowd and
the city authorities who heard these things. [9] And when they had
received
a pledge from Jason and the others, they released them."
ground could be established. For three weeks he reasoned with them
from the Scriptures, using the Old Testament (as we call it today) to demonstrate
the truth about the Messiah. Paul met with some success, for some Jews,
as well as "God-fearing Greeks" and a number of the leading women believed
the message. The "God-fearing Greeks" refers to those who, while not completing
the proselytization process, attended the synagogue and listened to the
reading of the Scriptures. Nothing is said about the character of the dialogues
outside of Paul's reliance upon the Scriptures as his source of teaching.
We are told, however, that as soon as people began to follow Paul's teachings,
the Jews became jealous. We are not told that they were
able to refute Paul, or anything else. Instead, jealousy was their
motive. While they had not been able to get the God-fearers to convert,
Paul succeeded in convincing them of the truths of the gospel and eliciting
from them their belief and obedience.
Luke is making a contrast between the attitude of the Thessalonians
and that of the Bereans. As F.F. Bruce points out in his commentary on
Acts, the term originally referred to nobility, but eventually came to
mean "open minded." How did they show their open-mindedness? They did so
by eagerly receiving the message of the Apostles, daily examining the Scriptures
to see if what they were receiving was in accordance with God's truth.
The Greek text indicates that these were not two different activities:
the receiving of the message and the searching of the Scriptures on a daily
basis are one action in Luke's description. The "daily examining the Scriptures"
is a description of the means by which the Bereans received the word of
the Apostles. A.T. Robertson points out that the term "searching" as in
"searching the Scriptures" (avnakri,nontej) means "to sift up and down,
make careful and exact research as in legal precesses as in Ac 4:9; 12:19,
etc.).
Now, the reason this passage is relevant is quite clear: here you have
individuals comparing the Apostolic message against the Scriptures. What
is the ultimate source of authority for the Bereans? Plainly, it is the
Scripture. And just as obviously, the Apostles have no problem at all with
this procedure. Hence the necessity of addressing this passage on the part
of Mr. Ray.
But here we have the WORD (with a little help of the Holy Spirit, no
doubt) falling on the ears of the Bereans, and no doubt wanting to believe
it! And of course, to confirm this new faith, seek the Scriptures
for final confirmation. Now here we have it folks - The Bereans,
believing in the authority of the Scriptures (The Old Testament) and at
the same time, believing in a new revelation, that at this point, is still
verbal. This is an important point. Now whether the Berean
Jews already had an oral
tradition or not, they sure do have one now!
Steve, that was kinda your whole point, right?
[Editor: The main point is that the Bereans cannot be
called noble-minded for merely searching the Scriptures--for the Thessalonians
did the EXACT same thing. The Bereans were noble-minded because they accepted
the new teachings in addition to their OT]
and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob
and set the city in an uproar." The motivation of the Jew's action is plainly
jealousy, nothing more. Of course they did not embrace the message: if
they had, they would not have been jealous! Why make a point of this? Note
Mr. Ray's own words:
they rejected Paul's message, and if it is a claim that his teachings
do not jibe with the Old Testament writings, then it could certainly be
said that they were in a scripture only mode, and for an imperfect reason
to boot.
Another point: How related are the events in Thessalonica and Bereoa
that they should be placed so close together in Scripture? Here is
an interesting quote:
"To this strand Luke added two scenes, at Thessalonica and Beroea respectively,
both highly schematic and of parallel structure: customary synagogue beginning,
discussion of the Scriptures, success with (especially) women of high ranking,
outbreak of persecution under Jewish instigation."
It's beginning to look like the Thessalonians may have been more Sola
Scriptura after all!
"hardness of the heart" that the other did not? Steve, your suggestion
that the Thessalonians practiced a little sola scriptura, as far as I was
concerned, was taken by me as simply a thought provoking suggestion that
was not to be taken as serious fact. Correct me on this if I read
you wrong.
That seems to have passed over James' head when he read it. Indeed,
the suggestion that the Bereans were against sola scriptura is likewise
simply that: a suggestion that has more validity than the standard suggestion
that they were for sola scriptura, the very argument you were refuting,
and that is the whole point!
including those that the Jews themselves claimed were "divine" in origin.
Which is exactly why the Bereans are commended: they are doing what they
should have done when faced with a new message. They are testing that message
for consistency against the ultimate rule of faith for God's people: the
Scriptures. At this point, however, Mr. Ray utterly departs from the text
and says:
fathers believed in sola scriptura? No, unless it can be shown
that the suggested doctrine is indeed, implied in Scripture. But
since it can be shown that what Paul taught them at Thessalonica is indeed
soundly shown in Scripture, then the tag "Sola Scriptura" seems to
fit the Thessalonians to a tee!
Paul demonstrates that the Christ had to suffer, die, and rise from
the grave. Luke, in his Gospel and Acts, also clearly illustrates that
Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are governed by divine necessity (refer,
e.g., to Luke 2:49; 4:43; 13:33; 24:26; Acts 3:21). 'It is Luke's underlying
concern not to depict Jesus' death as the tragic failure of a prophet but
to present the death and resurrection of Jesus as necessary saving acts
of God.'
In his presentations, Paul discusses three facts: that Christ had to
suffer, he had to rise from the dead, and he is Jesus proclaimed by Paul.
The Jews objected to the teaching that Christ died on a cross, because
to them a criminal hanging on a tree (cross) was under God's curse (Deut.
21:23; Gal. 3:13). The doctrine of the resurrection is the recurring theme
the apostles proclaim wherever they speak (see 2:24; 32; 13:30, 33, 34,
17:31). And identifying Jesus with the Messiah is Paul's personal objective
ever since his conversion on the Damascus road (refer to 9:22)' (Kistemaker,
pp. 613-614)."
reasoned, considered conclusion on the basis of an examination of the
Scripture is simply this: the text doesn't even hint at such an idea. Yet,
despite this, Mr. Ray says:....
argument Paul uses in his mission everywhere, be it to the Romans,
the Galatians, the Ephesians, and the Collossians. Oh, and how about
the Philippians? Betcha bottom dollar Paul used those same
arguments to the Hebrews as well. It is so easy for me to include
in that category the good people of Thessalonica and Bereoa as well.
tradition that approximated the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church
of today. No, they were not "crypto-Protestants" anymore then I am
a "proto-Jew."
I will say this again: Steve is a Rush Limbaugh fan, I believe, and
Rush often says: "I demonstrate absurdity by being absurd."
I'll bet Steve knows what I am talking about here.
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)."
"Luke gave the Jews at Berea undying fame by characterizing them as
being "more noble" (eugenesteroi) than the Thessalonian Jews because
they tested the truth of Paul's message by the touchstone of Scripture
rather than judging it by political and cultural considerations. So they
examined the Scriptures daily (kath hemeran) to see whether what
Paul proclaimed was really true, and many believed."
"When the same speaker ministered in the next synagogue, the listeners
were not swept off their feet by eloquent oratory; they searched the Scriptures
'every day to see if what Paul said was true.' (The New International Version)."
Apparently, they had more faith in the Word of God than in the man
who expounded it. When Paul cited certain prophetical utterances, the listeners
unrolled their scrolls to see if the prophets had indeed made such predictions.
Luke said the people in Berea were "more noble" than the Jews in Thessalonica,
and that probably meant they were more educated. Farrar said, "Instead
of angrily rejecting this new Gospel, they daily and diligently searched
the Scriptures to judge Paul's arguments and references by the word and
the testimony--they were more generous, more simple, more sincere and truth-loving."
was all about? The BIBLE, of course! In fact, it was supposed
to be your only source, remember?
Now as Catholics, we see that there is something else that goes along
with it in our "private exegesis" of Scripture, we now include the Magesterium
of the Church in the loop (probably the greatest reason why I feel safe
in the bosom of Holy Mother Church--seems as if Christ knew what He was
doing). This is not to downplay the reading of Scripture, of course, but
my point is, Protestants, in their struggle hold on the exclusivity of
the Bible as their only source of faith, always emphasize the almost
slavish "searching of the Scriptures." It is the epitome of their
faith, because it is their only source of that faith.
Now, how many times have you heard (as a Protestant) that Paul was
probably a very eloquent preacher? In fact, I recall hearing that
he was probably the greatest preacher ever! Maybe he was or maybe
he was not, but it strikes me as very strange to see a Protestant writer
(an assumption, as I do not know of this Igor fellow) that downgrades Paul's
eloquency in the spoken Word, in favor of the studying of the Old Testament!
Does that make sense to you? Do you detect that same Protestant agenda
here as I do?
"Examining the Scriptures daily...Paul expounded the Scriptures daily
as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation,
examined...the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland, people have the
Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth
imitating. Whether these things were so.... Literally, "if these things
had it thus." The present optative in the indirect question represents
an original present indicative as in Luke 1:29 (Robertson, Grammar,
pp. 1043f.). This use of ei with the optative may be looked at as
the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less
likelihood of determination) as in Acts 17:27; 20:16; 24:19; 27:12
(Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested
in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves.
What a noble attitude. Paul's preaching made Bible students of them. The
duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey)."
Why do all these commentators say the same thing? Because the text
is plain beyond dispute....
those days? I don't think so. Where could the Jews of Beroea
go to for advice and a determination of who is right and who is wrong?
I know of none. They seemingly determined, on the spot, that Paul's teachings
was right. What else could they do but to do so themselves without
a central authority to do so?
I would hasten to add, however, that we simply do not know how much
the traditions of the "Covenant of Abraham and Moses" had as an influence
here, but I suspect that since it did not contradict the Scriptures they
had at hand, it was not a particular actor in the matter.
The point I want to make, however, is that Christ seemingly established
a Church with great authority (a la Matt 16:18-19) that produced a divine
organization that has no precedence in what we see in the Old Covenant.
Protestants deny this, of course; therefore, the Jews of the Old Covenant
are apparently the "model" for Protestant Christianity because they had
not the authority of a Church that a future Christ would impart in all
its glory. To admit this, though, would destroy their whole doctrine like
a house of cards!
traditions."
put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority."
[Editor: Mr. White, please get the facts straight. You know
that no doctrine is defined infallibly until caled into question. Thanks
for another straw-man, James.]
which implies such a thing (the quotes I have already given), this
took a while before even the infant Church realized the full implications
of the idea, just like the Church did not have a full understanding of
our present doctrine of the trinity and other refinements (some of which
you do not accept).
Why is it, James, that you have a professorship in your pocket (I'm
glad for you here), and yet I see that same implication that the "New Testament
Church," in all her raw infancy, seems to be considered fully developed,
with a leather-bound Bible in hand (as if miraculously dropped into its
hands by angels from heaven--maybe with Jesus' words in red print?) had
all of the earmarks of the Protestant idea of the infant Church!
I know I am being simplistic with you here, but it is the curious and serious
thinking non-educated Christian fellow like myself that you must convince.
But I read the writings of the early fathers and see nothing of the kind.
What I see is what I see in no other Church except the One Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church! These things are the facts that convince me,
James.
from a Roman Catholic apologist on the doctrine of sola scriptura that
does not engage in the most egregious forms of misrepresentation and argument-begging.
William M. Putnam