1 Cor 4:6 supports Sola Scriptura?

[youthcrusader]

My dad who’s an evangelical Protestant told me that in 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul tells us not to “go beyond what is written”. But in context, the passage reads like this (from the RSV):

1: This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2: Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
3: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4: I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5: Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.
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.
7: For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

Clearly, St. Paul refers to “what is written” as what he had just said several verses earlier, that Christians shouldn’t judge one another. Further, Paul says this so “that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another”. I am correct is saying this, and that therefore, this passage does not support Sola Scriptura?

 

[bengeorge]

?

Haha… yeah, you’re right. But I’m laughing because of the straws that the sola-scripturoids have to grasp at in their attempt to bolster their heresey.

 

[youthcrusader]

bengeorge:

Haha… yeah, you’re right. But I’m laughing because of the straws that the sola-scripturoids have to grasp at in their attempt to bolster their heresey.

Yeah, you’d have to go to long lengths to get support for Sola Scriptura, especially from passages like these. When Paul says not to “go beyond what is written”, he’s basically saying, “Don’t dismiss what I just said”, that we should not “pronounce judgement”. Paul says he “applies this” to himself and Apollos so that we “may learn by” them not to neglect what he just wrote, that is, not to “pronounce judgement”.

 

[BibleReader]

youthcrusader:

My dad who’s an evangelical Protestant told me that in 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul tells us not to “go beyond what is written”. But in context, the passage reads like this (from the RSV):

1: This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2: Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
3: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4: I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5: Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.
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.
7: For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

Clearly, St. Paul refers to “what is written” as what he had just said several verses earlier, that Christians shouldn’t judge one another. Further, Paul says this so “that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another”. I am correct is saying this, and that therefore, this passage does not support Sola Scriptura?

The critical sentence…

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos 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

…does not mean,

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn to restrict yourself to Scripture alone and ignore outside authorities, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another

Rather, it refers to words already written in Paul’s own letter, right there, in 1 Corinthians 1:10…

**I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. **

In other words, 1 Corinthians 4:6 simply means…

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by our example to restrict yourself to doing what I described in writing up above in this letter, namely that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another

Paul isn’t even *thinking *of sola Scriptura.

 

[awalt]

It’s amazing how people conveniently forget to read because they are grasping at straws. I wonder what they do when they see a sign that says “Turn right” if they know it means to steer their car right at the next turn, and not to swivel themselves to the right in the driver’s seat?

Sheesh

 

[E.E.N.S]

youthcrusader:

I am correct is saying this, and that therefore, this passage does not support Sola Scriptura?

Well, nothing in the Bible truly supports ‘Sola Scriptura.’ And if it did, how then can a person know without an outside authority that the Bible itself is infallible? A book cannot claim itself as infallible - you MUST have an authority of some sort (e.g., the Church.)

 

[TOME]

Youthcrusader, I think this situation may offer you and your father to have a interesting discussion on the scriptures and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. And here is some background on this passage and letter.

Frist, Paul is writing to a very fragmented community in Corinth. There were splits over who was better because of the various gifts of the Holy Spirit individuals received (some though that since they had a special charism, speaking in tounges for example). Paul had to remind them these gifts were for ministry in the Church and not personal glorification.

Another split was on the second coming and the resurrection of the dead. And, a very serious split was happening concerning the Eucharist. It seems that the Church in Corinth celebrated the Eucharist with in a communal meal. But at these meals splits were being created over social position and wealth. The wealthy and more socially powerful people were being served, probrably would even eat in the same areas as the poor and slaves. The poor of the community were given what we would call the scraps or left overs (if there were any) from the common meal while the upper class were so well satisfied with food and drink that some were even getting drunk on the Consecrated wine while, again, the poor were left with almost nothing.

But a major cause of division was something Paul had to fight not only in Corinth but in most of the other mission Church’s he established. This was over the question about the role of the Mosaic Law and Christianity. Apostles such as Peter and Paul taught that Christianity was the New Israel the Covenant made in the Blood of Christ therefore gentile Christians were not subject to the Mosaic Law (it seems Apollos was with Paul on this matter). But others, especially Christian Jews from Palestine, like James, insisted that the Mosaic Law and the prophets were fulfilled by Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice, not done away, therefore, because Christ came to fulfill the Covenant, followers of Christ were subject to the Mosaic Law. (By the way - in the other writings of Paul, when he seems to condemn “works”, if you read his letters as a whole letter you will find he is refering to Keeping the Law when he says works). So the Church of Corinth was being divided amoung different groups depending on which teaching they thought was correct (both couldn’t be right).

And this is the context from which that passage is coming. Paul is putting his reputation on line for all the Corinthians to see in order to heal the divide. Now about that line about “Beyond what is written”. In Chapter 11 when Paul talks about the Eucharist, he doesn’t refer to any written passage of scripture does he? No he can’t because none of the Gospels were written yet. He says (in regards to the Last Supper) what was handed on to him which had to be from oral tradition (most likely from Peter) Also through Paul’s letters there are constant referals to the Oral Tradition that is the Apostolic Tradition. Look at Paul’s letters to Timoth and Titus. Are not his instructions grounded in oral not written teaching? Why? because at that time in our Church’s history, we only had the Old Testament as a written source. Most of the text of the New Covenant were not written in Paul’s life time (until of coarse he wrote them) the Gospels were not written, we know that, but there lived, as I mentioned above the Oral Tradition that would develope in written form as the NT. But this written form is grounded in the oral tradition that the Church continues in what we call the Apostolic Tradition. And this Tradition hasn’t been replaced by the Written NT but it is through both, that the Church teaches, God’s revelation comes to us.

 

[porthos11]

You may also want to point out two possbilities

1. This is one point where the chapter numbering puts an artificial break in the flow. You can actually extend the context to as far back as 3:18, where Paul is talking about the wisdom of God vs. the wisdom of men, and that they are preaching the mysteries of God, and it’s by those standards that men should judge them. In v19 and v20, Paul is quoting the OT to set this standard. Chapter 4 v6 may reasonably be applied to the preceding verses in 3:19 and 3:20. It is in a matter of judgment and self-perception that Paul writes this verse, and I really think he has in mind 3:19 and 3:20 ONLY when he refers to “what is written”.
2. Some also say that “not to go beyond what is written” is an axiom referring to old method of teaching how to write Greek letters by tracing the hand of the pupil over pre-written letters. It later came to be used to mean “follow a standard” or “stay within the teaching” or something like that.

Either way, it cannot support Sola Scriptura, because as others have pointed out, just because a book claims to be authoritative does not mean it is.

 

[tamie]

I have the New Living Translation bible and 1 Cor 4:6 says “…if you pay attention to what I have quoted from the scriptures…” I can’t see where protestants can base sola scriptura on that. It doesn’t say “only from the scriptures” anywhere. I am getting ready to start RCIA and I just cannot believe what I am finding out about Protestantism and Catholicism! My only wish is that I had known years ago that the Catholic Church is the one true Church!

Tamie Walcott

 

[TOME]

Porthos, you brought up some excellent points and I especially appreciated your pointing out the origin of " Not going beyond what is written". Sometimes the historical context can be a great light and I think this is one of those times.

Thanks again.

 

[MikeB]

So what you are saying is that everything written after Paul wrote this is to be rejected? Gospels, some of Paul’s own letters, Book of Revelation, etc, etc?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

MikeB.:

So what you are saying is that everything written after Paul wrote this is to be rejected? Gospels, some of Paul’s own letters, Book of Revelation, etc, etc?

Good point. Even if we grant for a moment that Paul’s statement means what Protestants think it means, it runs smack into the dilemma: what is written? What belongs in the collection of what is written that we are not supposed to go beyond? Who gets to decide? Why do they get to decide?

Scott

 

[Genesis315]

See, this passage is actually great evidence against assurance of salvation. People who walk around saying “I’m saved” need to read this:

3: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4: I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5: Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

youthcrusader:

My dad who’s an evangelical Protestant told me that in 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul tells us not to “go beyond what is written”. But in context, the passage reads like this (from the RSV):

1: This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2: Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
3: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4: I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5: Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.
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.
7: For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

Clearly, St. Paul refers to “what is written” as what he had just said several verses earlier, that Christians shouldn’t judge one another. Further, Paul says this so “that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another”. I am correct is saying this, and that therefore, this passage does not support Sola Scriptura?

It could be said to illustrate it - but only if other, more certain passages can be found which refer to *sola Scriptura *with much greater certainty. Otherwise, all one has is a few words which do not refer to the idea directly.​

And one cannot build a case by arguing for what is doubtful (whether or not sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine) by reasoning from what is more doubtful(that is, from a passage which may be of doubtful relevance to the doctrine one is trying to establish).

There may be passages which point to sola Scriptura, but this one is too uncertain (because too readily interpreted in other senses - see previous posts in this thread) to be taken as pointing to it.

If I were going to argue for sola Scriptura, I would not base anything on this passage. A sound method would include arguing from passages, if there be any, which cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean anything but that sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine. And although the NT authors, and Jesus, clearly had a very high respect for the OT, that is not quite same as saying that the complete OT & NT are the supreme rule of faith and doctrine & the supreme judge of controversies in faith (which is what the doctrine amounts to - it is** not** the same thing as the naive kind of monobiblicism with which it appears to be identified by so many Catholics: though there are doubtless many maintainers of *sola Scriptura *who are naive monobiblicists - but theological naivete is not exactly confined to Protestants).

FWIW, both the ideas of *sola Scriptura *&the “three-legged stool” are alike in one vital respect: both try to show that created means of God’s revelation can bring certainty. I don’t think either can - because neither let God Himself speak to the Christian without mediation. If God is God, and not a mere prop for this or that theological system, He must be free to embarrass and bebother those who insist that because He has used certain means to reveal Himself, He can use no others. Human reasoning cannot attain the certainty of Divine faith. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Genesis315:

See, this passage is actually great evidence against assurance of salvation. People who walk around saying “I’m saved” need to read this:

3: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4: I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5: Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

It isn’t - because it does not imply any doubt about the factual status of OSAS. BTW, salvation is in three stages - as the Greek shows, & as other Catholics quite rightly point out:​

• To have been saved by Christ; and
• to be in a state of being saved; and
• to inherit the fullness of the salvation of which the Holy Spirit is a pledge to the Christian upon earth

are all parts of one mighty saving act of God as viewed by man. So -

We can be justified, without being thereby perfectly sanctified in this life: Paul’s doubt is about the details of his sanctification - not about the fact of his justification. And OSAS is a doctrine relating to justification, not to sanctification. Since the stability of eternal security is founded on nothing but God’s goodness to us, and not on our merits or strength, it is entirely credible. How could anything be more self-evidently true than that God is faithful, and the source of faith and power & might; and that man is dust and ashes ? How can man be saved, unless he is saved by God Almighty ? Is man, the sinner, “dead in sins & trespasses”, made alive by his own power ? Or does Christ the Saviour look with an eye of pity on him, and save him ? Does man convert himself to Christ ?

The Puritans, solid Calvinists that they were, frequently emphasised the sinfulness & corruption & deceitfulness of the human heart. That did not stop them believing in OSAS, because OSAS is not based on the righteousness of man, but upon the Blood-brought Righteousness of Christ, Who is God & man. Awareness of personal sinfulness is therefore not in the slightest an argument against OSAS, far less a disproof of it - all it shows is that man is not yet fully regenerated by the Holy Spirit; that he is not yet fully sanctified.

If man is not the author of those holy and heavenly gifts - Who can be, if not God, and God alone ? If God does these things, how is He not the author and cause of the perseverance of those whom He has by His grace chosen to be the fellow-heirs of His Glorious Son ? To say that God does these other good things, and then to deny that God is the only Stability and Strength of His elect, the sole Author of their perseverance in grace, does not mahke sense; it implies that God is like a workman who begins the salvation of man - but is unable or unwilling to bring it to its completion: which is not the teaching of St. Paul.

What is the difficulty in believing that the faithfulness of God will ensure our salvation ? Is it that there are dogmas which appear to deny that ? But how is this different from other things we do believe: such as that Christ is both God and man ? Or that God is good and almighty, even though we live in a world filled with evils beyond number ?

If sound can be both a particle and a wave - different as these two things are - in the world of nature, why can there not be similar puzzles in the world of faith ? If we believe only what we can understand, what kind of faith is that ? “Even the Muslims do as much”.

We can perfectly well think or hope we will receive a reward, without knowing much about its details. Is a reward of $5 any less truly a reward than a reward of $ 50,000 ? ##