To Be a Berean

I have been challenged to "Be a Berean" (Acts 17:10-11) and look at Scripture and see how the Gospel of Jesus contradicts the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I have accepted that challenge but have concluded that the Catholic Church is teaching truth. (Though I believed the Catholic doctrines in the first place, I did pose to myself questions such as "How can 'such and such' doctrine be supported in Scripture? I've never seen any Scriptural support!") (Incidentally, "To be a Berean" is a concept which already exists in the Catholic system... it is acquiring knowledge so that we can give the full assent of our intellect and will to God in our lives.)

Here's my journey in Bereanization...

First, I considered the Bereans themselves. Berea was a Greek city, so I presume they used the Greek language Bible, which in all likelihood would be the Septuagint, which in all probability included the deuterocanonical books (lacking in the modern Protestant translations). Some Catholic doctrines find
support in the "deutero's", sometimes more so than in the protocanonical books. (That's one reason the Protestant Reformers tossed them out of their canon of Scripture.) The Bereans were also of a culture/time/place/language which gave them a worldview that allowed them to correctly interpret Scripture without
great difficulty.

But here I am... 2000 years later, half a world away, in an utterly different culture, reading an American-English translation of the Scriptures. In order to correctly intreptret these Scriptures I need to understand the
culture/time/place/language/linguistic sense of the writers. In order to gain that understanding I need to learn it from other humans (unless God chooses to reveal it directly, but that's not generally the way He works). That is quite a bit of learning to acquire. So I'd spend a lifetime to learn all there is in those regards, and read the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures keeping in mind all the cultural customs and issues of the day. Then I would have come as close as is possible to "becoming a Berean" and could then most accurately interpret Scripture. But most people don't have the relative luxury or time, nor some the intellectual inclination, to take on such a daunting academic task. So we depend on others to guide our interpretation. In this way we accept a certain tradition of interpretation.

As for me, I read the New RSV Catholic Edition. I also read the writings of the post-Apostolic Christians (leaders of the Christians and the first Scripture-commentators) to see how they interpreted Scripture. I also read modern commentators (Protestant as well as Catholic). I also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Bible Dictionary. And Strong's Concordance. I also look in to secular historical information. Oh, yes, prayer is the first tool to use when delving in to Scripture.

At this point in my studies, I have learned the historical/cultural/linguistic/literary contextual interpretation of enough of the scriptures to conclude that Catholicism is true. Mainly, I've looked in to the contested doctrines (Holy Eucharist, Popery, Mary-ology, Sacramentalism, etc.) and found that they do have Scriptural support. When the proper context (historical/cultural/linguistic/literary) is considered, such doctrines, even if not explicitly described, are implicit and logically inferrable.


I have found the Catholic commentaries and explanations to be more thorough and logical, in general, than the Protestant commentaries and explanations. This is due to the nearly-2000-year history of the Church's study and pondering and prayer on Scripture. The Church's understanding of Apostolic doctrines grows and deepens with time and study and prayer and meditation. (But no new doctrine or public revelation has been introduced since the the last Apostle died.) Periodically through time the Church leadership will declare certain doctrines to be dogma. These dogmas are not new teachings but ancient teachings which are clarified (perhaps due to some church member teaching error) and henceforth required to be accepted by Catholics (and, indeed, all other Christians as well. But that's another discussion in itself). Examples are the three-person nature of God, the divinity of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus, and Adam and Eve being real people and the actual couple from whom has sprung every human being.


Scott Hahn does a good job conveying the contextual interpretation...

Here he's discussing Covenantal Salvation History, describing Christ's Church as
the ultimate outgrowth of the original family of God, Adam and Eve:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/Mod2.html

And here he Answers Common Objections to Catholicism:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/Mod4.html

(Those are transcripts of lectures. The audio can be found online.)

So, to truly be a Berean in this age and place and culture we need to accept a tradition to guide our  interpretation of Scripture. I choose the Tradition of Catholicism. It has sensible doctrines (when correctly understood) and is traceable to the Apostles. Non-Catholic traditions (notably Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) can't be traced back to them and are not Scriptural.