The Bereans Did Not Practice Sola Scriptura

[JAL]

Consider the NIV translation of Acts 17:11:

“11Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

In my view, that translation is severely mistaken and misleading because it touts skepticism as the noble response to apostolic preaching. When Jesus said to the Twelve, “Come follow me,” was the noble response, “Not at this moment because we are skeptical. Give us some time to research your teaching in the Scriptures, and even attend seminary for better research.”

Apostolic preaching was inspired and authoritative. This is the Protestant consensus on 1Cor 2:13. Hence the noble response is not skepticism but acceptance. On what basis? The Inward Witness! Meaning, if the Spirit is present to convict the listener, he should accept the message of an apostle or prophet. Was the Spirit (Inward Witness) convicting the Bereans? Their eager acceptance of the “Word of God” (logos) at Acts 17:11 and Acts 17:13 indicates so.

Admittedly an apostle can speak his own scholarly opinion at times – and here skepticism is fine. But the “Word of God” refers to an inspired Word from the Lord, usually arriving to a prophet such as Abraham (see Gen 15:1) or John the Baptist (who was a prophet of Elijah-magnitude). For example:

“The word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3).

The proper response to John's preached Word – the noble response – was acceptance rather than skepticism. And we know that the Inward Witness convicted multitudes of his listeners, because the crowds flocked to him, recognizing him as a true prophet.

To summarize, the apostles and prophets wielded an oral authority when they preached the Word. (Catholics have always recognized this fact, indeed the papacy is largely predicated on that assumption). Paul put it like this:

“Our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction…. 6And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word (logos)” (1 Th 1).

Inspiration is authoritative. Meaning if the Inward Witness convicts your conscience of something today, whether directly or via a prophet’s message, it is obligatory. Therefore I replace Sola Scriptura with Sola Conscience. The Inward Witness is a higher authority than biblical exegesis, because His conviction is what moves you to accept or reject any book of the Bible as truth. As Jack Deere admits:

“Although there may be a number of factors that help to convince us of the authority of Scripture, we are ultimately persuaded of its authority by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit”(Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, p. 116).

You see what Jack Deere just admitted? The Inward Witness is authoritative!

Most commentators on Acts 17:11 seem to stand on both sides of the fence, viz. “The Bereans were noble to accept Paul’s gospel but skeptical of some of his teachings" - with the exception of John Calvin's commentary, if I'm understanding Calvin correctly (not very easy). Calvin seems to rightly imply that the Bereans, far from skepticism, accepted all of Paul’s teaching at that time. What then is the meaning of Acts 17:11? Here Calvin’s response seems twofold:

1. Life is tough. Our faith needs daily reinvigoration. The noble Bereans examined the Scriptures daily for this purpose, for the reinvigorating joy of seeing biblical documentation of what Paul had taught. What Paul said was true, but was it actually mentioned in the Scriptures?

2. Calvin believed that Christians have a moral responsibility to practice Sola Scriptura, that is, to exegetically confirm even those truths already taught them by the Inward Witness. Calvin isn't questioning the authority of the Inward Witness - he just thinks God prefers that we go through the motions of confirming it biblically. (Here I disagree).


So that’s my take on Acts 17:11. All this is just my opinion of course. But certainly it calls into question the frequent regard for this verse as an impregnable basis for Sola Scriptura.

 

[The Liturgist]

Consider the NIV translation of Acts 17:11:

“11Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

In my view, that translation is severely mistaken and misleading because it touts skepticism as the noble response to apostolic preaching. When Jesus said to the Twelve, “Come follow me,” was the noble response, “Not at this moment because we are skeptical. Give us some time to research your teaching in the Scriptures, and even attend seminary for better research.”

Apostolic preaching was inspired and authoritative. This is the Protestant consensus on 1Cor 2:13. Hence the noble response is not skepticism but acceptance. On what basis? The Inward Witness! Meaning, if the Spirit is present to convict the listener, he should accept the message of an apostle or prophet. Was the Spirit (Inward Witness) convicting the Bereans? Their eager acceptance of the “Word of God” (logos) at Acts 17:11 and Acts 17:13 indicates so.

Admittedly an apostle can speak his own scholarly opinion at times – and here skepticism is fine. But the “Word of God” refers to an inspired Word from the Lord, usually arriving to a prophet such as Abraham (see Gen 15:1) or John the Baptist (who was a prophet of Elijah-magnitude). For example:

“The word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3).

The proper response to John's preached Word – the noble response – was acceptance rather than skepticism. And we know that the Inward Witness convicted multitudes of his listeners, because the crowds flocked to him, recognizing him as a true prophet.

To summarize, the apostles and prophets wielded an oral authority when they preached the Word. (Catholics have always recognized this fact, indeed the papacy is largely predicated on that assumption). Paul put it like this:

“Our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction…. 6And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word (logos)” (1 Th 1).

Inspiration is authoritative. Meaning if the Inward Witness convicts your conscience of something today, whether directly or via a prophet’s message, it is obligatory. Therefore I replace Sola Scriptura with Sola Conscience. The Inward Witness is a higher authority than biblical exegesis, because His conviction is what moves you to accept or reject any book of the Bible as truth. As Jack Deere admits:

“Although there may be a number of factors that help to convince us of the authority of Scripture, we are ultimately persuaded of its authority by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit”(Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, p. 116).

You see what Jack Deere just admitted? The Inward Witness is authoritative!

Most commentators on Acts 17:11 seem to stand on both sides of the fence, viz. “The Bereans were noble to accept Paul’s gospel but skeptical of some of his teachings" - with the exception of John Calvin's commentary, if I'm understanding Calvin correctly (not very easy). Calvin seems to rightly imply that the Bereans, far from skepticism, accepted all of Paul’s teaching at that time. What then is the meaning of Acts 17:11? Here Calvin’s response seems twofold:

1. Life is tough. Our faith needs daily reinvigoration. The noble Bereans examined the Scriptures daily for this purpose, for the reinvigorating joy of seeing biblical documentation of what Paul had taught. What Paul said was true, but was it actually mentioned in the Scriptures?

2. Calvin believed that Christians have a moral responsibility to practice Sola Scriptura, that is, to exegetically confirm even those truths already taught them by the Inward Witness. Calvin isn't questioning the authority of the Inward Witness - he just thinks God prefers that we go through the motions of confirming it biblically. (Here I disagree).


So that’s my take on Acts 17:11. All this is just my opinion of course. But certainly it calls into question the frequent regard for this verse as an impregnable basis for Sola Scriptura.

I agree with your overall conclusion and recently made a similar point in another thread.