‍ 

Dialogue on Verifying Everything 

by Scripture

 

Do the Bereans teach us that we must personally 

verify everything by Scripture?

 

Gary Hoge

 

Paul preached to the Thessalonians on how the Scriptures actually teach that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. A few of the Thessalonian Jews were receptive to this message. Many of the Berean Jews were receptive; in fact, the Berean Jews searched the Scriptures during the weekdays between Paul’s sermons to prove what Paul taught—a more noble thing: be so eager to receive God’s message that you search the Scriptures yourself when someone claims to be teaching you what they mean, and don’t just take his word for it—not even if he’s the greatest Apostle of Jesus who ever lived! By extension, certainly not if he’s someone who is roughly 2000 years downstream from the greatest Apostle of Jesus who ever lived.

 

I think that’s excellent advice. Of course, it should also be applied to the teachings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc., who were roughly 1500 years downstream from the time of Christ. Each of these men claimed to have finally figured out what the Scriptures really teach, and each developed his own unique and contradictory doctrines, none of which existed before the sixteenth century. Since the Reformers could not agree among themselves what the Scriptures taught, they anathematized each other and proclaimed each other “damned” and “out of the Church.” 

 

Yes, you’re absolutely right, we should not just take their word for it that the entire Christian Church was in flagrant and fundamental error from the death of the last apostle until the Reformation, which is roughly three-fourths of the Church age (as of this century). Are we really to believe that Christ let His church, His bride, the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), wallow in error for the great majority of its existence, until these guys finally came along to save the day? Sorry, too absurd. :-)

 

First, I don’t believe that, as I don’t define His church as being “everyone who labels himself as Christian,” but rather “everyone who is Christian,” a subset of the former. Instead, [must we] believe that an institutionalized elite group at the top of the whole religious hierarchy that utterly dominated most of Europe and Christianity for centuries did not succumb to the natural human failings of some within the upper reaches of that power structure, the natural human failings that pervert and corrupt all monopolistic/oligarchical institutions periodically/eventually? Sorry, too absurd. :-)

 

I agree that “those who are Christians” are a subset of “those who call themselves Christians,” but my point was that if the doctrines of the Reformers (take your pick which Reformer) are true, then all Christians, real and imagined, were in error for fourteen-hundred years, because those doctrines did not exist before the sixteenth century. I suppose you could argue that there were no true Christians until the Reformation, but I assume you don’t believe that.

 

Getting back to the Bereans, you said that I had “not proven” that they would not have continued to examine the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (once he established his apostolic authority) and that you believe they would have actually continued to do so indefinitely. Very well, then, please show me the Scriptural basis they would have relied on for accepting Paul’s teaching on circumcision. Show me the Scriptural basis they would have relied on for accepting Paul’s teaching on “original sin” (Romans 5). Show me the Scriptural basis they would have relied on for accepting Paul’s declaration that “all food is clean” (Romans 14:20). If the Bereans checked the Old Testament Scriptures to see whether these things were true, they would have had to conclude that they were not. If you disagree with that, then prove me wrong and show me where the Old Testament confirms the truth of these things. Please. :-)

 

I don’t know offhand if, or what, is the Scriptural (Old Testament) basis for the teachings you mention. Possibly he may have pointed to such verses as show the Law/Old Covenant would be replaced by a New Covenant. Therefore, ALL elements of the Law, such as circumcision, are done away with. Believers are not “under” any of the Law. Paul cited one example of this by saying we no longer need to circumcise boys. I suspect support could be found for the contention that no man had sinned before Adam, and no man has been sinless since. I certainly don’t know of any Scriptures that teach it’s okay to eat pork, etc., but again we’re not under the Law, and I think there are Old Testament verses that could be shown to make that case.

 

I’d like to see those Scriptures. It seems to me that the only reason we know we’re not under the Law is because Paul says we’re not (Gal. 5:18). I see nothing in the Mosaic law that indicates it was to be a transitory and temporary covenant. On the contrary, circumcision was said to be “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:13). The Israelites were told to “celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread . . . Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come” (Ex. 12:17). Regarding the dietary and sacrificial Law, God said, “You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live” (Lev. 23:14). Regarding the Day of Atonement, God said, “I will destroy from among his people anyone who does any work on that day. You shall do no work at all. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live” (Lev. 23:30-31). Regarding the Feast of Tabernacles, God said, “Celebrate this as a festival to the Lord for seven days each year. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come” (Lev. 23:41). Regarding the Sabbath, God said, “The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever” (Ex. 31:16-17).

 

I don’t mean verses within the books of the Law, I mean verses in the books of the Prophets.

 

Of course, God is free to set aside this covenant if he chooses, and to make a New Covenant. Many centuries later, God indicated that he planned to do just that: “‘The time is coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel . . . It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers.’” (Jer. 31:31).

 

Thank you.

 

This is the thing you must grasp, and it is my whole point: Paul used the Scriptures to demonstrate to the Bereans that the Messiah had come; the New Covenant had arrived. They believed him, and they put aside their Scriptures and listened to him as he taught them the details of the New Covenant. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for them to verify the details of the New Covenant by searching the Scriptures (the Old Covenant) because the New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. Some of the New Covenant is hinted at in the Old Covenant, such as Abraham’s justification by faith, but much is brand-new, such as the end of circumcision.

 

What someone might have done at the time to test to see that what Paul said was true, was to read that God did announce his plan to set aside the Old Covenant at some time. Paul then went on to tell them what that New Covenant is, and that part they accepted on faith that it had come from God, based on the trust Paul had built in them that what Paul told them was from God really was, and on their receptive spirit aided no doubt by the Holy Spirit. Today I accept this additional teaching is Truth from God because it’s in the Bible, not just because Paul said it. You’re the only person I know who is arguing that Jews in A.D.70 must require Jesus and the Apostles to show every last jot and tittle of what they say must be already written in near-verbatim format in the already-existing Scripture--I know I sure don’t. Period.

 

This is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. To quote myself: “the Bereans, once they became Christians, would not have continued to test Paul’s teaching against Scripture.” They would have taken Paul’s word for it regarding the details of the New Covenant, based on his authority as an apostle of Christ, and based on the Bereans’ faith in the fact that Paul had received the gospel by revelation from Jesus himself. I was certainly not suggesting that the Jews required the apostles to prove every teaching based on already-existing Scripture. In fact, that was the very argument I was trying to refute. I’m so glad we finally agree on this point!

 

We don’t at all. That’s not what I said. First off, I now see I fell into your assumption that Paul taught the Bereans anything about the New Covenant at all. Assuming Paul went on to teach the Bereans something else besides how the Christ must suffer and rise from the dead, and Paul had taught them the meaning of the Scripture verses re: the New Covenant, he may well have launched into the details of this promised New Covenant not found in the Scripture verses, and the Bereans I assume would accept the new teaching on faith that it was from God. Part of my contention would of course be that if Paul broached another subject, a hypothetical example being the end times, the Bereans would again check all the Scriptures available to them to make sure that nothing he taught contradicted what was found there.

 

Once again, to the extent possible Christians should verify what is being presented to them as the Truth by going to the only known source of Truth (in the original at least) and verifying everything possible that can be verified. If, during that process, you find clear teaching that must invalidate what is being taught, then you have reason to suspect the “Truth” of the message. If you do not, then you must decide whether to accept the “Truth” of the message. If that “Truth” is adding something truly new to the Bible, I might well say, “can it,” as I believe the Bible is complete—the Bible is the Word, and it doesn’t authorize any extra-Biblical body of knowledge co-equally part of the Word but passed along in the world today, all for the reasons already given.

 

What reasons? If you presented any, I’m afraid I must have missed them. Where does the Bible say that it is “complete,” in that it contains within its pages the sum total of the revelation that God gave the apostles to pass along?

 

IT DOESN’T AND I’VE ALREADY SAID THAT! As I’ve already said, the Bible DOESN’T say there’s a co-equal branch of the Word, and I hold therefore to the position I’ve outlined for the reasons I’ve given in this and the other e-mail discussion we had last week.

 

You say that the Bible “doesn’t authorize any extra-Biblical body of knowledge co-equally part of the Word but passed along [orally].” Sure it does. See 2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Tim. 2:2. What the Bible does not authorize is reliance on the written teaching of the apostles to the exclusion of their oral teaching.

 

That may be true, but doesn’t exclude or mandate change in my position.

 

In the New Testament, the believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). It is this apostolic teaching that is the source of truth for us, and not all of the apostles’ teaching comes to us directly from an apostle either. We accept the writings of Mark, Luke, and Jude, even though they were not apostles. We don’t even know who wrote the book of Hebrews, but we accept it as being legitimate apostolic teaching. The same was true of the oral teaching. The Christians accepted it whether it came from an apostle, or from one of their associates, who spoke in their name:

 

We have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love you have for all the saints--the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God’s grace in all its truth. You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant . . . (Col. 1:4-7). 

 

The Colossians didn’t learn the gospel from an apostle, they learned it from Epaphras, one of the “fellow servants” who was empowered by the apostles to preach. The apostles’ teaching was the basis of Christian doctrine and practice “whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

God moved the Apostles, etc. to write the Truth down and others were miraculously guided to collate it. At the time you quote, the Truth wasn’t all written down and collated, so the Gospel was dependent for its dissemination by word-of-mouth to a much greater degree--and even solely--then than now. All for the reasons already given.

 

The group that was “miraculously guided to collate” the Bible was the fourth century Catholic Church, under the guidance of Pope Damasus I. That’s why the New Testament canon is sometimes called the “Damasan canon.” Since you reject the authority of the Catholic hierarchy, why do you trust them to have correctly compiled the New Testament?

 

Because I believe God was at work, not just humans--regardless of the source of their authority. [Regarding Epaphras], it’s always a good idea to pay close attention to anyone you believe to be Godly. All the more so that the people of that day would pay close attention to those who personally knew Jesus. That doesn’t mean they’re necessarily right and have a lock on the Truth.

 

I may have misunderstood you here. Are you saying that the early believers should have been cautious about accepting the apostles’ teachings?

 

Everyone should always be cautious about anything communicated to them.

 

If so, why do you uncritically accept the truth of their written teachings?

 

Because it’s THE BIBLE, and I believe it is inerrant in its original text.

 

Yet I find no evidence whatsoever in the inerrant New Testament to indicate that all of the apostles’ teaching was reduced to writing, and considerable evidence against such a supposition.

 

I find no evidence whatsoever in the New Testament to indicate that not all of the Apostle’s Inspired teaching was not reduced to writing, and the “considerable evidence” you cite is not convincing, all for the reasons already given.

 

Again, if you cited reasons, I’m sorry that I missed them. But here’s the thrust of my argument: If your supposition were correct, then upon Paul’s death, only his inspired writings would remain in force (since they would theoretically contain the sum total of the revelation that God gave him to pass along). Yet at the very end of his life, he told Timothy, “What you heard [not “read”] from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching . . . And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses [not “read in my letters”] entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” (2 Tim. 1:13, 2:2). That’s five generations of oral tradition: (1) Jesus to (2) Paul to (3) Timothy to (4) “reliable men” to (5) others. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly wanted his oral teachings to be propagated for generations.

 

Good summation. I would guess Paul and the other New Testament authors did not themselves particularly envision a “New Testament” being collated at some future time. Their ministry wasn’t one of walking around holding up pages of text in front of them for others to read. As we’ve agreed, they went about preaching. Paul also wrote letters to some of the Christian churches as they sprang up and the Spirit moved him, while some of the Apostles wrote books as the Spirit moved them. However, From Paul’s point-of-view, the Gospel message was spread primarily by word of mouth, and it seems therefore natural to me that he would speak of carrying on the work in those terms, as I’m sure Timothy and the rest thought likewise and did so. That said, I return to my position stated throughout that the “Oral Tradition” cannot be trusted to be the Word and only the Word, which I do trust the Bible is.

 

Nevertheless, if you allege that the Bible is now our only source of doctrine and practice, the burden of proof is on you to prove that. What is the basis for your assumption that all necessary apostolic teaching is found in the New Testament?

 

To the contrary, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, nothing additional to it has been proven to be likewise, and therefore it and it alone should be trusted as the source of “doctrine and practice” for my Christian faith. No Biblical evidence has thus far convinced me otherwise, all for the reasons already given.

 

You said that nothing in addition to the Bible has been proven to be the inspired word of God, but I would remind you that the Bible itself has not been “proven” to be the inspired word of God. We take that on faith. So if you’re looking for proof that the oral teachings of the apostles are inspired, I’m afraid I can’t give you any (other than 1 Thess. 2:13). But neither can I prove that their writings are inspired. However, if you grant that their writings are God’s truth, I don’t understand why you would not grant that all of their preaching was God’s truth, whether they wrote it down or not. Why do you limit inspiration to a subset of the apostles’ teaching? Where does the Bible say that only their writings are inspired? To accept only the part of their teachings that was reduced to writing is an artificial distinction, it seems to me, foreign to the Bible and to history. The early Christians made no such distinction, nor did their descendants until the twelfth century.

 

Because I don’t trust that anything from the lips of any man down through the ages is necessarily Truth, just because of his position in a religious hierarchy. If anyone in A.D.1900 (as opposed to before we had the New Testament) tried to teach that there is more than one path to salvation, for example, a Berean-minded believer would search the “Scriptures.” In this example, the “Scriptures” would comprise the 66 books of the Bible. :-)

 

It’s funny that you should chide me for accepting the judgment of the “religious hierarchy” and “taking their word for it” when you’ve done exactly the same thing. As you know, most Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) have 73 books in their Bible. These books have been in the Bible ever since the Bible was compiled at the end of the fourth century (at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage). You, on the other hand, accept only 66 books in the Bible because Martin Luther (the ultimate hierarchy of the Lutheran Church) removed seven of those books that had been in the Bible for 1200 years. He said they weren’t Scripture and so they had to go. For some reason, you don’t seem to have a problem taking his word for that, and thus apparently violating your own stated principles. I wonder why. :-)

 

I have faith that the Bible I know is the Word. This is no doubt fostered by being raised Lutheran, but I think mainly because I believe it to be true, and this belief is strengthened by my knowledge that many Godly people whose own faith and judgment I trust believe likewise.

 

Unfortunately, any good Mormon could say the same. He has faith that the Bible he knows (including the Book of Mormon) is the Word. And that is strengthened by his knowledge that many Godly people whose own faith and judgment he trusts believe likewise. My own faith in the Bible is based on something other than my own feelings, or the opinion of my friends. It is based on the authoritative decisions of the fourth-century Church. I believe that those men were, as you put it earlier, “miraculously guided to collate” the Bible. And I see no reason why I should take the word of one self-appointed “reformer” that the fourth century church erred. Considering that the same “reformer” wanted to remove four books from the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) I see very little reason to trust his opinion of what is and is not Scripture.