N
ni8_shadow
Guest
What is the context of the “do not go beyond what is written” verse? Some protestants I have talked to use this verse to “prove” SS after I demonstrate that the famous verse in Timothy fails to do so.
- Status
S
scaron
Guest
That is way out of context. Here is the context:
Paul is referring the lesson he is teaching to himself and Apollos - the lesson of being servants of God, and not under judgment to men, but only under judgment of God. He is saying not to judge each other, and thus “be puffed up” by thinking you are better. And if I, Paul, apply that to myself and Apollos, then don’t you, Corinthians, go beyond what I have written about how we view ourselves, in how you view each other.
And lastly, please. Come on. At the time Paul is writing this to the Corinthians, the Gospels have not yet been written!
1 Cor was almost certainly written by Paul in Ephesus, in 56 or 57 AD. The earliest dates for the gospels (Mark or Matthew first, non-withstanding) are at best 68-70, with most folks saying 70’s-80’s.
So how could Paul be referring to other writings (ie. the Gospels) in 56, when they won’t even exist for a dozen years?!!
D
DarkMark
Guest
I know, that is why Protestant interpretation of this text does not make sense. If Protestants want to accept this silly interpretation, then they would have take out the Gospels from there Bible (not to mention Revelation). And to think I use to interpret that verse that way when I was a Protestant
R
rinnie
Guest
Ok guys forgive me, but i need to understand this and its not connecting today sorry, but how does this prove sola scriptura. dont get me wrong I dont believe in it but how are they seeing it. hope you understand what im asking?
D
DarkMark
Guest
Once a Protestant see the phrase “do not go beyond what its written”, they assume that Paul is preaching “sola-scriptural”. Make sense, right?
But as a poster alreadly explain, context is everything! According to the context of the text, St. Paul is not teaching such doctrine. Protestants love to twist Scriptures.
R
rinnie
Guest
Okay now dont leave me, i have a cousin who fights with me over this every day. Now what about where it says in John where it says all is not written and the world could not hold all the teachings and miracles. not exact words but you know where im comming from.
D
DarkMark
Guest
You talking about the last verse of Chapter 20 in John. I never meant a Protestant who use this verse to prove Sola-Scriptural. But still, it will not prove sola-scriptural. The fact that there were some things not recorded in Scriptures proves that the Bible does not contain “everything”. There are teachings preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,** either by word of mouth or by letter”** (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). There is Scriptures + Sacred Traditions.
“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
R
rinnie
Guest
no.no, John 20 is me, how could they believe in Sola Scriptura with that in John is what i am asking. In my opinion John says point blank its not all in here.
D
DarkMark
Guest
Well that is the mystery of Protestantism
Protestantism ignore verses and twist others to fit in there doctrines. I have argue with many Protestants about Sola-Scriptural. They simply do not compare Scriptures with Scriptures. If one take Scriptures as a whole, you will soon realized that Bible alone is false. If one reads what was the Faith of the Early Fathers, you will realized that they did not believe in Sola-Scriptural.
In the end, Protestants will believe whatever they desire, even if the facts is right in front of there face. Kinda sad realling. . . . .
N
ni8_shadow
Guest
So the “written” refers to Paul’s letter he was currently writing (1Cor)?
Are there any other ways this can be interpreted? Saying in the Old Testament?
Are there any other ways this can be interpreted? Saying in the Old Testament?
M
Mick7
Guest
When St. Paul refers to Scripture he refers to the Old Testament - not the New (as already pointed out) much of it hadn’t even been written. The Greek word he uses in the text is gegraptai which means “has (ve) been written” (past tense). That is, something in writing that already exists. Further, the text ought to be understood in context and mindful of what the Holy Spirit intended to convey through St. Paul.
J
jcrichton
Guest
In order for that passage to be taken as sola Scriptura that would mean that the Apostles and others that followed could not write a single letter nor give a single sermon nor preach a single thing that was not already written and they had to, by the same necessity, refrain from expanding on anything written as to give better explanations (as Phillip and the eunoch).
The ideology of sola Scriptura is only conductive to “you don’t need the Church that Christ founded.” The Epistles arose out of the need to denounce the various false teachings faced by the early Church… do you actually believe that the Belivers circulated the Epistles and waited about in silence till they got a hold of the next “print?”
Finally, sola Scriptura negates the function of the Holy Spirit in the Church–by prescribing such fallacies they are, in essence, saying that the Holy Spirit surfaced for a few years and eventually simply faded into the sunset while the Church muddled through passing the Epistles and other Sacred Writings back and forth…
Maran atha!
Angel
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
1 Cor 4:6 I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
I seem to remember Aquinas cross-referencing this passage with one of the Deuterocanonical books, no less (and he wrote in the 13th century, FYI)…
Ah, here it is (LINK):that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ’s ministers, against another [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the foregoing; for* Wis (4:19**) states: “He will dash them puffed up and speechless to the ground.” *In other words, don’t go beyond what is written in Wisdom about being “puffed up” and arrogant.
I seem to remember Aquinas cross-referencing this passage with one of the Deuterocanonical books, no less (and he wrote in the 13th century, FYI)…
Ah, here it is (LINK):that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ’s ministers, against another [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the foregoing; for* Wis (4:19**) states: “He will dash them puffed up and speechless to the ground.” *In other words, don’t go beyond what is written in Wisdom about being “puffed up” and arrogant.
R
rocketrob
Guest
I think there is evidence in this passage of the teaching Magisterium of the Church.
rocketrob
N
ni8_shadow
Guest
Great stuff peeps thanks!!
R
Returnee
Guest
Let’s also remember that this forum is linked to the vast resources at catholic.com.
Can 1 Cor 4:6 be used to support sola scriptura? NO! Not even the early “reformers” thought this.
Can 1 Cor 4:6 be used to support sola scriptura? NO! Not even the early “reformers” thought this.
- Status