[HarleyD]

To some, the behavior of the Bereans evidently seems like a clear-cut proof of Sola Scriptura. I just don't see it....so if you are right about God's plan, I think these behaviors work against it.

I don't wish to sound preachy but for a while I had part of Ezra 3:13 as my tagline. The text of Ezra is:

Ezr 3:11 And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the LORD; because [he is] good, for his mercy [endureth] for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid.
Ezr 3:12 But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, [who were] ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy:
Ezr 3:13 So that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people: for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off.

Most people (and commentators) read this as there were those who could not see what God was doing in peoples' lives. Consequently those who were mourning were focus on things of the past.

I believe this is a misinterpretation. Those ancient fathers who had seen the first temple knew the glory and majesty represented by that first temple. What they saw in front of them in the second temple was a cheap imitation version and they wept. Sure God was working in the people's lives and people were singing songs and having a good time; but the people truly didn't understand the lost they suffered. They didn't remember the glory and majestic of their former temple. The crying of those who did remember could not be heard over the joy, the praising and the giving of thanks. What God had given the people was a diminished version of His glory.

Call me Mr. Sourpuss but there is much truth in this. Christianity has moved on to the second temple. We sing for joy when we should be weeping at what we have lost. We no longer see the beauty and majesty of God's gospel, replacing it with substandard products like pageantry, councils, and bumper stickers. And we're happy.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Sorry friend, frank discussions about the scriptures over the precepts of man do not work against us. They are simply a call reminding people of what we are losing.

[Mad Dawg]

Okay, I'm getting a concept that, from your POV (and that of some of the cheering peanut gallery), the motivation is not what I would call a discussion seeking understanding, but a proclamation among the heathen of the truth, "and let God sort them out."

So, in support of this conjecture: When I go after an argument, I am tend to be looking for errors in fact (It is said we teach "A", while my understanding is that we do not) or logic (Since some pray to saints, therefore they must think the NEED to pray to saints), among which are internal contradictions or absurdities (no examples come to mind). You on the other hand will consider the mission mostly accomplished merely by clearly articulating the "correct" doctrine.

We're trying to do two different things. So when you mount an assault on our notions of the intercessions of the Saints, any related criticism is relevant. So that if you raise the question of "Why not go straight to Jesus?" and I answer that Protestants also ask for the prayers of others, you think it germane to bring up, say, the "prayers to the dead" criticism, because the goal is to stomp into the dirt the whole idea of intercession of the saints. While for me, the manner of stomping, the truth, reasonableness, and efficacy of it is what needs examining, and since we're not done looking at the question of intercession generally, the bringing up of the 'dead' question is a just changing the subject and looks evasive.

So when your side is done mentioning this or that point and hauling out this or that piece of Scripture or Calvin, you all Amen and generally high-five each other. And we're thinking and sometimes saying, "Wow, how unreasonable and perseverative they are!" We are seeking to discuss, while you are seeking to proclaim and denounce. I am not HERE saying which is better. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the problem is that we are doing two very different things with different goals.

To you all, the raising of a contradictory fact or the pointing out of a logical anomaly is an interference with your divine mission of denunciation and proclamation, so it must be driven out somehow -- anyhow. To us the repetition and piling up of citations just looks like throwing one rock after another and not stopping to see if they were well-aimed.

This can lead to a certain level of animosity. And, indeed, if my take is right, then I see no point in "engaging" with you all, except possibly socially and, maybe, in prayer sometimes.