One of the distinctive Protestant principles is expressed in the slogan sola scriptura, which is Latin for “by Scripture only.” The idea is that every teaching on faith or morals must be directly or indirectly based on the Scriptures.
That leads to the common question, “Where’s that in the Bible?”
It’s an important question. In fact, it’s a question that needs to be asked about the doctrine of sola scriptura itself. Because if every teaching on faith or morals has to be based on the Bible then sola scriptura must be based on the Bible.
If it’s not, then it is a self-refuting claim and is false.
So what passages do Protestant Christians appeal to in support of sola scriptura?
Berean Christianity!
One that is sometimes cited is Acts 17, which deals with an incident that happened when St. Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue in the Greek city of Berea.
St. Luke writes:
Acts 17
Many in the Protestant community have found this an inspiring story, and some have even named their ministries after the Berean Jews. If you go online you can find all kinds of Berean churches, schools, ministries, and bookstores.
The idea is that we should imitate the Berean Jews and take a skeptical attitude of theological ideas we are presented with. Instead of just accepting them, we should search the Scriptures daily to see if what we are being told is true or not. If it’s not, then we should not accept it.
If that’s what the passage means—if it is commending the Bereans for their skeptical attitude and refusal to believe a teaching unless it can be found in Scripture—then this would be good evidence for sola scriptura.
But that’s not what it means, and it’s easy to show that.
What About Thessalonica?
You’ll notice that Acts 17:11 says that the Berean Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, which raises an immediate question: “What were the Thessalonian Jews like?”
If they are less noble in contrast to the skeptical Bereans, presumably they were credulous individuals who accepted what they were told without Scriptural proof.
That’s not what they were like at all. To see this, let’s back up to the beginning of the chapter, where we read:
Acts 17
[1] Now when [Paul and his companions] had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
[2] And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,
[3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
[4] And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
[5] But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,
[7] and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
[8] And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this.
[9] And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
[10] The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
It’s in that context that we now return to the verse where we started:
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
The Real Reason the Bereans Were Praised?
So the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question.
Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
This understanding is confirmed by the following verses, where we read:
[12] Many of [the Bereans] therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
[13] But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds.
[14] Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.
So the Thessalonians forced Paul to flee Berea, just as they had forced him to flee from their own town.
Thus it wasn’t the Bereans who were skeptical. It was the Thessalonians.
“By the Old Testament Alone?”
There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament.
What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.”
While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith.
What the Berean Jews were willing to do, therefore, was to open-mindedly look at the Old Testament Scriptures, see if they confirmed Paul’s preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and then go on to accept the new, Christian revelation that Paul also imparted.
And he imparted it by preaching, because the books of the New Testament were not all written yet.
The True Attitude of Berean and Thessalonian Christians
If we were to follow the example of the Bereans, we would look at whether the Scriptures we do have support a particular message and, if they do, then be willing to accept further revelation not found in those Scriptures.
We would, ironically, embrace the attitude of those at Thessalonica who did accept the Christian faith, for in 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul told them:
2 Thessialonians 2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
In other words, we would recognize the authority of all of the traditions passed on from Christ and the apostles, whether they were written or not.
And this is what the Catholic Church says we should do.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about these and other matters, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out fascinating information on a variety of topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
If you’d like to listen to or download this in audio format, just use the player and links below!
“Thus it wasn’t the Bereans who were skeptical. It was the Thessalonians.”
The Thessalonians took Saul’s teaching at face value and accused him of sedition. I don’t see how that is skepticism.
I came up with the term “Sorta Scriptura” because I think Sola Scriptura is inaccurate: Protestants are “sort of” following Scripture, they’re certainly not following Scripture as a whole, much less <i>alone</i>.
“Sorta Scriptura”
LOL! I like that. BTW I protest that I’m not a Protestant, either.
@noprem We have disagreed on another post at length, but I’m chiming in here with to LOL!
Prior to my conversion, I viewed Sola Scriptura from the logical perspective of “if everything one needs to know about salvation ISN’T in scripture, then what happens to people who weren’t privvy to it?” If, for example, something was revealed in 2012 that shed light on salvation, what about everyone who died prior to 2012?
I still feel partial to that view, but I’m not quite as attached to it as I was before turning Catholic.
– There is a book: “The year of living biblically” about a jew who tried to live a year following the Bible as literally as possible. This leads indeed to conflicting and hilarious situations, because there is no fallback regarding interpretation.- That said, this article has not raised conclusive arguments against Sola Scripture as such. This is just a good starter. There should not be logically anything wrong with saying that the Bible is a subset of the knowledge of the faith. The initial claim of the protestants lie not in that everything that catholics/orthodox do is wrong, but that there is no way to be sure if they are or are not wrong.They fall back on the Bible (by default, as by definition it can’t be wrong), because that is (somehow) immutable and thus much less likely to have errors of faith. After all, if a dogma or rule clashes with the Bible, the Bible carries more weight of truthfulness.-Which does not mean that their *interpretation* of the Bible material is therefore holy.That is the problem with diving into the atoms, be it law, physics, or texts. Once you get to the naked words themselves, there is much certitude being lost.
– There is a book: “The year of living biblically” about a jew who tried to live a year following the Bible as literally as possible. This leads indeed to conflicting and hilarious situations, because there is no fallback regarding interpretation.
– That said, this article has not raised conclusive arguments against Sola Scripture as such. This is just a good starter. There should not be logically anything wrong with saying that the Bible is a subset of the knowledge of the faith. The initial claim of the protestants lie not in that everything that catholics/orthodox do is wrong, but that there is no way to be sure if they are or are not wrong.They fall back on the Bible (by default, as by definition it can’t be wrong), because that is (somehow) immutable and thus much less likely to have errors of faith. After all, if a dogma or rule clashes with the Bible, the Bible carries more weight of truthfulness.
-Which does not mean that their *interpretation* of the Bible material is therefore holy.That is the problem with diving into the atoms, be it law, physics, or texts. Once you get to the naked words themselves, there is much certitude being lost.
One major problem I have with sola scriptura is that it ends up conflating the gospel with the Bible. What we’re obviously supposed to believe to be saved is the gospel. What the Bereans demonstrate is that the gospel is not exactly the same thing as Scripture. It is a critical support to the truth of the gospel.
“Many of [the Bereans] therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.” True, because scriptural and historical.
Given that Paul was an effective preacher, and that he used the [Jewish] scriptures properly, then why only “MANY of them therefore believed’? Why not all? As Paul also noted in Acts 28:27, some have the truth thrust under their very noses, so to speak, yet still reject it. That is not for or against “sola scriptura”, it’s human nature, prophesied by Jehovah. (The cross-reference is to Isaiah 6:10) I’ve often found it interesting that “sola scriptura”- which is not part of my belief system- is a phrase used only by Catholics when addressing scriptural responses to Catholic questions, comments, and dogmas. Especially interesting, coming from people who claim ‘ownership’ of the Bible. Why are they reluctant to use ‘their’ book?
The section “By the Old Testament Alone?” needs clarifying as to its presentation of non-Catholic beliefs. It’s true that “the books of the New Testament were not all written yet”, which makes his statements at Romans 1:2 and 15:4 all the more relevant. ALL scriptures written aforetime were written for our instruction, not that a particular doctrine or dogma be found or established, but that “we might have hope.” That hope, for Christians, comes from the establishment of Jesus, as Jehovah’s anointed, as king of the kingdom for which we are told to pray. That is mankind’s only hope. And one “commandment” which we might say is ‘not found in the Old Testament’ is at John 13:34,35. “A NEW commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” (Douay) How can a “Christian” exegete read that and then go to war with fellow Christians?
Granted, this is a new way of looking at sola scriptura — but the piece holds us Catholics back in that age old inner quest to confirm that our faith prevails over protestant faith. That is so beyond the point. Scholars in all the major denominations lament the misuse of scripture and hardly seek to defend the “sola” notion. There is so much common ground to be shared with other denominations in just grasping what the words written for early Christians meant in the context of their time and culture. Frankly Jimmy, I’m disappointed that your writing doesn’t get past dualistic undertones like “us versus them.” You are way too gifted to be stuck there.
<i>Sola scriptura</i> is an apostolic concept. The idea is that we should want to stay true to the teaching of the Apostles.
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
Taught by whom? Taught by “us.” Apostles. The Thessalonicans and Bereans were taught by Apostles. Unfortunately we are almost 2000 years removed from the Apostles. The New Testament is reliable Apostolic teaching. It is the only reliable Apostolic teaching since the Apostles are no longer around to ask. Properly applied, <i>Sola scriptura</i> simply means judging any given teaching against the known reliable Apostolic teachings of the New Testament. If it conflicts, reject it.
@jeffdouglas “Sola scriptura is an apostolic concept.” Evidence?
“…the Apostles are no longer around to ask.” Which is why Jesus set up a Church, which he invested with His authority to teach, and promised that His Church would never teach in error on matters of faith and morals, lest the Gates of Hell prevail against His Church. (Matt 16).
The Church was built on the rock. The Church is not itself the rock.
@jeffdouglas No evidence and no response to my second paragraph; just a non sequitur.
@jeffdouglas
The early Church was taught by the apostles, true, but they were also present to interpret what they meant by their writings and word of mouth. They are not present in the flesh, today, so to whom should one go to settle a dispute over interpretation? The proof that the text does not self-interpret is given by the fact that when it was tried, many different Protestant groups emerged with many different interpretations. The apostolic ability to definitively interpret hard passages of Scripture had to have been preserved to prevent chaos. The only group in continuous continuity with the apostles is the bishops of the Catholic Church, led by the Pope. They are the only logical group to which this ability could have been passed.
The Chicken
P.s. Jimmy, how is care for your vision problem progressing?
“[The apostles] are not present in the flesh, today, so to whom should one go to settle a dispute over interpretation?”
If you go to someone other than apostles, your church is not apostolic. If a teaching disagrees with the apostolic teaching in the Bible, the teaching is erroneous. That is Sola Scriptura. I think you would agree that it is not impossible to use the Bible alone to refute some erroneous teachings. If someone taught that Jesus was really a woman you wouldn’t have to run to your bishop and ask if that was true. You have <i>some</i> trust in the words of the Bible. It’s not like the words of the Bible are gibberish to anyone except bishops.
So I think you and I just disagree to the degree in which the Bible alone can be trusted to refute false teaching.
@ The Masked Chicken
@jeffdouglas “…so to whom should one go to settle a dispute over interpretation?” Followed by 2 paragraphs avoiding a direct answer.
The direct answer is, of course, nobody. There is no promise of a living person or persons every generation to settle disputes by fiat.
@jeffdouglas Whoever claimed that anyone was to settle disputes by “fiat”? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Perhaps you should brush up on Catholic teaching before commenting on it.