- Discussion:
-Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin wrote an article in response to the citation of Acts 17:11-12 as being supportive of Sola Scriptura. His focus is on the nature of the response of the Bereans to Paul's teaching and the canon of Scripture being incomplete. Jimmy Akin's comments are cited in bold and followed by a refutation:
"...the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question. Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ."
Acts 17:11-12 supports Sola Scriptura in that the Bereans had tested the validity of the Apostle Paul's message. They compared it to the Old Testament, which is Scripture. As for the contrast in the nature of the response of the people from Berea and that of the Thessalonians, that does not change the argument. The former still appealed to the Scriptures to verify the teachings of Paul and were commended by Luke for that reason. In fact, the earlier part of this context shows Paul himself as using the Hebrew Bible as the final court of authority in debating Jews (Acts 17:1-3).
"...the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question. Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ."
Acts 17:11-12 supports Sola Scriptura in that the Bereans had tested the validity of the Apostle Paul's message. They compared it to the Old Testament, which is Scripture. As for the contrast in the nature of the response of the people from Berea and that of the Thessalonians, that does not change the argument. The former still appealed to the Scriptures to verify the teachings of Paul and were commended by Luke for that reason. In fact, the earlier part of this context shows Paul himself as using the Hebrew Bible as the final court of authority in debating Jews (Acts 17:1-3).
"There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament. What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.” While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith."
Saying that Paul and Silas did not have a complete New Testament in their hands is nothing but a red herring. The original intent of Luke does not rule out later applications of his written text to broader societal contexts. Therefore, it is not out of bounds to cite Acts 17:11-12 as a supporting text for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, in Roman Catholicism, scriptural proof is not necessary in order for a dogma to be true.
Paul did not direct the Bereans to an infallible teaching office in order for them to understand the content of his message. They did not wait for a council or bishop to tell them what to believe. They interpreted the Word of God for themselves. The Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient for the purposes of Paul as he witnessed to others. They were also sufficient for the Bereans to verify the message that he delivered.
No comments:
Post a Comment