The problem is that you are taking two entirely different eras in time and putting them on equal grounds.<quoted text>
If you think Sola Scirptura is what the Bible teaches, then why is the Church's interpretation wrong? Then you don't believe in Sola Sciptura, you believe in xxx scpriptrua.
Think about has asinine Sola Scriptura has to be. Everybody believe what you want.
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....
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."
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 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....
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 put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. 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). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.
By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed.
But the Bereans received "the word" (i.e., oral teaching; proclamation) with eagerness. They were open to it (that is why Paul commended them). Then they went to the Scriptures to confirm Paul's oral teaching. In other words, it was a "both / and" methodology. They weren't opposing one thing to the other. Both were true, and their harmony with each other confirmed that. They didn't rule out the possibility that the oral proclamation was true (simply because it was oral); they merely confirmed it from existing written, inspired revelation.
The Bereans knew they could not rely on Sola Scriptura because the Sola Scripture they had contained unfulfilled Messianic prophecies. They knew that the whole story had not been revealed but that one day it would not only be revealed, but documented as well. It just so happened that they lived in the time in which it occurred. But still, they did not go running to the religious authorities of the time and outsource their views of the scriptures to them. They did not appeal to tradition. Instead, they looked at the scriptures on their own, without the “help” of the Jewish leaders.
Today, the only unfulfilled Biblical prophecy deals not with doctrine, but with the second coming.