One of the most abused passages to support the doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura is Acts 17:11. The text reads:
These were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the
scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Representative quotations
from pro-Sola Scriptura advocates include the following:
This is the heart cry of sola Scriptura. Test that
which isn’t the inspired Word of God by that which is the inspired Word
of God. This makes sense because God’s speech is of greater authority than all
other speech. (Gavin Ortlund, What it Means to be Protestant: The Case for
an Always-Reforming Church [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Reflective,
2024], 81)
Truth seekers have been commanded to be like the Bereans
who were considered to be most “noble” in Acts 17:11 because they
double-checked the Scriptures to see if Paul, a legitimate apostle of God, was
correct. (Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion
of the Latter-day Saints [rev ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2015],
11)
The Bereans were considered to be more righteous than the
Thessalonians in Acts 17:11 because they searched the Scriptures (Old
Testament) to see if what Paul taught was consistent. (Ibid., 135)
The truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in the
Bible—the only book of Scripture inspired by God . . . Many counterfeits have
additions to the Bible. . . . The Scriptures speak for themselves. ‘In these
last days God has spoken to us by his Son’ (Heb 1:2). Jesus said that we are in
error if we do not know the Scriptures (Matt 22:29). The Scriptures written to
teach us and give us hope (Rom 15:4), and in order that we may believe in
Christ (Jn 20:31). Isaiah declared that every message should be checked out
against the word of God (Is 8:20), and that is just what the Bereans did when
Paul and Silas preached the gospel to them (Acts 17:11). . . . In Acts chapter
17 we meet the Bereans. Paul came and preached the gospel to them. But they did
not go away and pray about it—they searched the Scriptures to see if what they
had been taught was in agreement with God’s word . . .(Mike Thomas and Ann
Thomas, Mormonism: A Gold Plated Religion [Aylesbury, England: Alpha,
1997], 12, 15, 28, 108)
We can, however, test Joseph’s key teachings against the
Bible. . . . we must follow the example
of the believers at Berea in Acts 17:11 who “searched the scriptures daily” to
see if Paul’s new teachings were trust. (Thom Hobson, The Historical Jesus
and the Historical Joseph Smith [Nashville, Tenn.: Elm Hill, 2019], 33)
There are many problems with the appeal to Acts 17:11 and other texts (e.g., 1 Cor 4:6; 2 Tim 3:16-17) to support Sola Scriptura. As I noted elsewhere, one has to realise that the defender of sola scriptura is in an impossible bind, exegetically and logically speaking if/when they attempt to use biblical texts (e.g., 1 Cor 4:6) to “prove” the formal sufficiency of the Bible. Why? Simply because that, regardless of the text one cites, it was written at a time of special revelation, and during such times, even according to defenders of sola scriptura, sola scriptura was not the normative rule of faith for the people of God as there was no totality of scripture (tota scriptura has to be in place for there to be sola scriptura).
However, there is more to this with respect to the Bereans and Acts 17:11.
Different
Epistemological Situations of the Bereans and Modern Protestants
Even the New Testament
Christians were not in the same epistemological position as the Bereans from
the point of view of a modern Protestant, so to appeal to the Bereans in such a
simplistic manner is to compare apples and oranges even from the
perspective of Protestantism. There are three classes from the perspective
of a modern Protestant:
•
Christians living during the time of
the apostles
•
Non-Christians coming to NT
Christianity
•
Christians living in the post-apostolic era
(sharing the epistemology of, e.g., the first category, not the second [which
would include the Bereans post-conversion])
Further, during the time of
the apostles, including during the setting of Acts 17:11 and later, when the
record of the event is inscripturated, there was more than one
authoritative, binding source of revelation. The Bereans did not, and could
not, practice/teach Sola Scriptura. This is admitted by Protestant
apologists for Sola Scriptura.
Even allowing “Scripture” and “the Bible” to be one-to-one equivalent,
not all 66 books of the Protestant canon were inscripturated at the time of
Acts 17:11, so if one will absolutize this verse in the way many do, one will
have to hold to, at most, the Old Testament canon being exhaustive of true
scripture, which the Bereans no doubt used.
Also, note that the Bereans accepted a teaching that was not in
the Old Testament, and privileged it as being as inspired/authoritative as
inscripturated revelation. Their actions are contrary to Sola
Scriptura. As Robert Sungenis noted:
[1 Thess 2:13 is pivotal]
because it shows that Paul considered his oral message to the Thessalonians in
Acts 17:1-4, (which revealed that Jesus was the Christ), and by necessary
extension his moral message to the Bereans in Acts 17:11-13, as divine
revelations on a par with Scripture, as obscure as it was at times, unless
accompanied by an equally authoritative divine interpretation. This is the
essential teaching of the Berean encounter. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Does
Scripture Teach Sola Scriptura?,” in Not By Scripture Alone: A
Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert
A. Sungenis [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International
Publishing, Inc., 2013], 125)
As a result of these
considerations, we do have Protestant defenders of Sola Scriptura admit that
the Bereans could not have practiced Sola Scriptura. For example:
[There is] an errant belief that sola scriptura is
somehow contradicted by the [Bereans’] acceptance of “new revelation,” as if sola
scriptura is meant to be applied during times of revelation rather than
being a normative rule for the Church. (James R. White, “A Review and Rebuttal of
Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura)
Contrary to persistent charges by Roman apologists,
Evangelicals do affirm the binding authority of apostolic tradition as delivered
by the apostles. What they preached and taught in the first century Church was
authoritatively binding on the consciences of all Christians. . . . To be sure,
all special revelation given by God is authoritative and binding. There can be
no doubt that the oral teaching of the apostles and their approved
representatives was both (1 Thess 2:13). (David T. King, Holy Scripture: The
Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, 3 vols. [Battle Creek, Mich.:
Christian Resources, 2001], 1:55, 145)
Evangelistic/Apologetic Preaching and Didactic Preaching
The actions of Paul et al.
when preaching to the Bereans (unconverted Jews) is an example of “apologetic”
or “evangelistic” preaching. One will use their common source(s) with outsiders
when attempting such, as did Paul with the Bereans. However, once one becomes a
member of a religious group, in this case, the New Testament Christians, they
would have accepted the normative authority of the Church leadership to teach
authoritatively and, at times, bind the consciousness of members thereof. This
type of (didactic) preaching and authority of Church leaders can be seen in
texts such as:
The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who
rejects you reject Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
(Luke 10:16)
For even if I boast somewhat further about our authority
(εξουσια), which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you,
I will not be put to shame. (2 Cor 10:8)
But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she
is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. (1 Cor 7:40)
Calvin, in his commentary on
1 Cor 7:40, notes that Paul’s “opinion” alone is binding upon the consciousness
of believers:
As to what he adds—according to my judgment, he does not
mean by this expression that his opinion was doubtful; but it is as if he had
said that such was his decision as to this question; for he immediately adds
that he has the Spirit of God, which is sufficient to give full and perfect
authority.
This leads us to something that
is rarely discussed by some Protestant apologists, especially those who would
be labelled “anti-Mormon,” as they tend not to be read in historical Protestatn
theologies.
Functionally,
the Conscience (still affected by the noetic effects of the Fall), not the
Bible, is Central to Protestantism
Consider the following
representative quotations:
Martin Luther, Diet of Worms (1521):
“Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is,
plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the
testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of
Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often
contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced]
by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is
taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act
against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:184:
What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any
officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the
Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they
affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the
Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require
him to believe and to do.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic
Theology, 1:161: Although in the external court of the
church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions
(unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for
the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of
heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and
infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal
forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further
than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.
In this light, the
Protestant is only ultimately obligated to assent to any given doctrine if and
only if he judges it to be “biblical.” In other words, his conscience
plays the ultimate normative role. To say that some faculty
functions in an ultimate sense is to say that one is bound or obligated to
assent to the judgments of that faculty (here, one’s conscience) without
any exceptions.
The Authority of the Church in the New Testament: Acts
15 and the Council of Jerusalem
The Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) shows that the New Testament Church
did not view Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith; instead,
the authority of the Church was, alongside then-oral revelation and written
revelation, equal authorities. The doctrinal decision in this Council privileged
the authority of the Church. Furthermore, it is important to focus on this
event as it demonstrates the distinction of different types of preaching
(insider vs. outsider) as discussed above. Finally, it shows the fallaciousness
of the naïve Protestant understanding and use of the so-called “Berean test.”
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were
teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom
of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called. Verse 7
tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive
at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be
circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to
that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since
circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law
was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy
outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further,
there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud,
the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of
circumcision could be rescinded.
In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 (LXX) in an effort to
support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and
the cessation of circumcision during the Council of Jerusalem. However, when
one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the
requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX
notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes:
On that day I will raise up the tent of David that has
fallen, and I will rebuild its things that have fallen, and I will raise up its
things that have been destroyed, and I will rebuild it just as the days of the
age, so that the remnant of the people, and all the nations upon whom my name
was invoked upon them, will search for me,” says the Lord who is making these
things. (Amos 9:11-12 | Lexham English Septuagint)
Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking
only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean
that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see
Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped
this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Furthermore, the text of Amos 9:11-12 is problematic. For instance, “the
Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the
remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a
clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The
important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the
Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the
people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of
Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater
lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום Without
it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” יירשׁו was
also misunderstood as “to seek ידרשׁו It
is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive
verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes
more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that
it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom
(see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a
synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps
137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the
Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to
seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation
shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it
rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it
represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the
inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the
New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a
misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in
error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew
Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature,
2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
An honest Protestant should
ask themselves the following questions:
·
Could
a member of the believing community object to James’ interpretation of Amos
9:11-12 using the “Berean test” and object to the Council’s decisions?
·
Could
one appeal, as Luther et al., taught believers had a right to, to the internal
forum of conscience, and disagree with the Council’s decree?
·
If
“no,” why not?
·
Protestants
functionally know the difference between outsider and insider tests of
faith. Once people accepted the Gospel, they were bound to the normative
authority of the apostles and the Church.
Latter-day
Saints Do Agree with Testing Teachings by Scripture
It should be noted, however,
that Latter-day Saints do believe in the importance of testing teachings by the
Standard Works. For example:
It makes no
difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in
conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other
member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations,
we need not accept them. Let us have
this matter clear. We have accepted the
four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we
measure every man's doctrine. You cannot
accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in
doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard
works.“ (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203)
Paul had come in contact with so many persons having closed minds and lean intellects (which missionary hasn’t?) that the Beroeans must have seemed to him like beings from a better world. An open-minded man may not be the greatest of the creations of God, but he is certainly among the greatest. Luke says that not only did these people receive the word with “all readiness of mind,” but they also “searched the Scriptures daily” in order to verify for themselves the truth of what was told them. No wonder the author of the Acts brands the Beroeans as “noble”! We call the attention of all Latter-day Saints, particularly the younger generation to the emphasis placed here upon the Scriptures as a basic spiritual source. The Beroeans used it to test Paul and his companions. So we ought to test the truth of the various doctrines of our day. (Sidney B. Sperry, Paul’s Life and Letters [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Publishers, 1955], 84)
Luke commends the Jews of Berea as being, ". . .
more noble than those in Thessalonica . . . [because they] searched the
scriptures daily . . ." whether the word of God was so. As a result,
"many of them believed"
If we will add to our prayerful searching of the
scriptures, obedience to the commandments therein revealed, we shall assuredly
obtain "the Voice of the Spirit." For Jesus said, ". . . My
doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he
shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of
myself" Now there is just one source from which such knowledge can come,
and that is from God. And there is just one way in which it can come, and that is
by "the Voice of the Spirit." (Marion G. Romney, “The Voice of the
Spirit,” General Conference, April 1957)
However, Latter-day Saints
do also believe in the normative authority of the Church and, unlike the
Bereans who only had the Old Testament (not delving into the OT canon debate
here), have more Scripture (which, funnily enough, if one absolutizes Acts
17:11 in the way many Protestants do, means the New Testament books are
superfluous and only useful in the way that the Didache and 1 Clement are to
modern Protestants).
In spite of being a popular “go-to”
verse, Acts 17:11 does not support the doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura.
Protestant apologists who use this verse to support the doctrine and/or use as
a “trump card” against Latter-day Saint claims of extra scripture and on-going public
revelation are engaging in eisegesis.
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
