Protestants maintain that the only infallible rule of faith for Christians is the Bible—a doctrine known as sola scriptura. The belief was unknown to the Church until the fourteenth century at the earliest, when John Wycliffe advanced it. (This is reason alone to reject it.) It was later championed by Martin Luther in the sixteenth century, and it has been the Protestant standard for authority ever since.
Protestants appeal to a handful of verses in the New Testament to “prove” this doctrine. I am going to focus on one of their more prominent ones—namely, Acts 17:11. Upon closer examination of this verse, we shall see that it not only fails as a proof text for sola scriptura, but also supports the Catholic position.
The context of Acts 17 helps us understand what is occurring. Paul, together with Silas, taught for three weeks in the synagogue in Thessalonica, explaining how the scriptures show that “it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead” (v. 3). In response, some Jews (along with many Greeks and some leading women) became believers, to the dismay of the other Jews there. The latter, out of jealousy, created quite a disturbance in the city—so much that Paul and Silas had to slip out by night and go to Berea. There they were treated far more decently, and Luke notes that those 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” (v. 11). “See?” the Protestant says gleefully. “Even Paul’s teaching was measured against Scripture.”
Not so fast. There are multiple reasons why this verse fails as a proof text for sola scriptura.
Why are the Bereans more noble?
The Protestants’ “noble” emphasis is in the wrong place. The Bereans are complimented not for studying the scriptures (which we all agree is laudable), but for welcoming Paul and Silas and for their receptivity to what Paul taught them. The context makes this very clear. Furthermore, they eagerly received “the word of God” (v. 13), which refers to Paul’s oral preaching.
What is the subject matter of the verse?
The opening verses of chapter 17 establish the topic for the entire chapter: Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, and he had to suffer and then rise from the dead. This is the central Christian message. Paul’s teaching is directed to Jews, and he is advancing the gospel—not establishing an infallible authority for Christians.
What does anakrinó mean?
According to Strong’s Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon, which Protestants treat as authoritative, the Greek root word anakrinó—translated as “examined”—properly means “to scrutinize” and by implication means “to investigate, interrogate, determine.” It does not mean “to compare to a standard” or “to measure authoritatively,” which is how Protestants treat the word. Theirs is a case of eisegesis (reading meaning into the text), not exegesis (drawing meaning out of the text).
Anakrinó can be understood as meaning “conducting an investigation” or a “careful inquiry.” Until Paul taught them, the Bereans never understood that the Old Testament messianic passages were fulfilled in Jesus. I can imagine them reacting to Paul’s teaching something like this: “We never realized that was the true meaning of those passages! We are going to sift through them to see for ourselves that what you have told us is true. What an exciting prospect!”
The verse, then, is about an “aha” moment—an opening of their eyes. Sure, the passage implies that Scripture is authoritative (we all agree on this), but the passage is not establishing it as the sole, ultimate authority. These words are not in the verse, yet Protestants treat the verse as though they were.
Why does the verse say too little for Protestants?
Protestants acknowledge that when interpreting Scripture, you must take the context into consideration. The problem with their use of Acts 17:11 as a proof text for sola scriptura is that it establishes too little for a universal Christian standard. For Paul, “the scriptures” refers only to the Old Testament. Extending the words to also include the New Testament violates the context, and no Protestant would say that the only infallible rule for Christians is the Old Testament.
Why does the verse support Catholic doctrine?
What we see in Acts 17 is a clear case of Paul’s apostolic teaching coupled with and interpreting Scripture. This is precisely the Catholic position. Sacred Scripture was always meant by Jesus to work in concert with the ecclesial authority he established. There are dozens of examples in the Bible where Scripture is explained or interpreted by someone with the authority to do so (e.g., Jesus, an apostle, a prophet), and not one where someone is left to draw whatever meaning he chooses. Consider just a small sampling:
- 2 Chronicles 17:7-9 – King Jehosaphat sends out royal officials and Levites with the Book of the Law to teach people. The Law doesn’t teach itself.
- Nehemiah 8:1-9 – Ezra reads publicly from the Law for hours. He has supporters and Levites who explain it to the people. Merely reading it was not enough.
- Jesus – He interprets Jonah and the whale, the bronze serpent, the manna in the desert, his own parables, and the Old Testament scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
- Acts 2:14-36 – Peter interprets three Old Testament passages as being fulfilled by Jesus.
- Acts 8:30-31 – The Ethiopian eunuch needs Philip to explain the prophet Isaiah to him.
- Acts 18:11 – Paul teaches “the word of God” for a year and a half in Corinth.
- Titus 1:9 – Paul emphasizes teaching the true message of Scripture to prevent distortions.
The consistent and clear message of the Bible is that we don’t have the liberty to derive our own meaning from the sacred text, especially if it contradicts the Church’s teaching on it. Scripture is always a top-down arrangement, and the Protestant interpretation of Acts 17:11 shows what happens when one treats it otherwise.
The central appeal of sola scriptura, I submit, is that by giving individual believers the authority to interpret the Bible for themselves, it subtly enthrones the ego. Scripture means what I determine it to mean, not what I am told it means by a legitimate spiritual authority. (The Garden of Eden rebellion is still in our spiritual DNA.) But Scripture functions as Jesus intended only when it is taught by someone with a delegated mandate to do so.
Sola scriptura is a noble-appearing sanction for all kinds of doctrines to be manufactured by anyone who claims, “The Bible alone is the sole, infallible authority.” It is then interpreted by fallible people who don’t have delegated authority and who promote their own interpretations as truth because they are “based on the Bible.” If you want proof, look up how many distinct Protestant groups exist, all of whom claim the Bible as their sole, infallible authority yet teach different doctrines even on the “essentials”—if they can even agree on what those essentials are.
Surely Jesus left us a better system than this.