1 Corinthians 4:6

[Cruxis117]

This passage is often used by Protestants to support Sola Scriptura. I have made the interpretation that this verse, “to not go beyond what is written”, is referring to prior letters that were given to the Church in Corinth that were un-inspired that contained the message of the Gospel. If I am wrong, please correct me. I am willing to be open to reproof. I own the Ignatius Study Bible: New Testament, which has a different, but solid interpretation of this passage which I agree with. However, I have not seen anything written by the Church which denies this kind of interpretation. Can someone please either help correct me or assure me that what I have thought is within the orthodoxy of Catholic interpretation?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think you are on the right track. The way I see it, the Corinthians had been instructed in Christianity by Paul and Apollos, apparently partially through written sources. For the Corinthians to go beyond this would be to invent their own doctrines which had not been received from the Apostles. We later Catholics can’t do that either. We pass on the teaching of the Apostles and find new ways to phrase those teachings; we don’t go beyond them, or if we do (certain theological theories, private revelations, etc.) we recognize that these things don’t belong to the deposit of faith.

On an apologetic note I would point out that most of the New Testament had not been written at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. These new documents in a sense “went beyond” what had already been written when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Combined with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we see that what Paul expected people to hold on to was the traditions that had been authoritatively passed down to them, whether in writing or by word of mouth. But how do we, centuries or now millennia in the future, know which books were written by Apostles or Apostolic men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or in general what the Apostles taught? We need a living authority that legitimately can tell us.

 

[TimothyH]

On an apologetic note I would point out that most of the New Testament had not been written at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. These new documents in a sense “went beyond” what had already been written when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Combined with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we see that what Paul expected people to hold on to was the traditions that had been authoritatively passed down to them, whether in writing or by word of mouth.

Bingo.

Half the Bible had not yet been written. What constituted the Bible was argued about for another couple of centuries. And it couldn’t even be printed and widely distributed for another thirteen centuries.

Many non-Catholics go way beyond what is written in both their theology and practice. They don’t really restrict themselves to only what is written in scripture.

-Tim-

 

[Cruxis117]

Thanks guys! When I went through my Study NT, it was saying that the verse referred to the Old Testament (and thus provides references for other verses in 1 Corinthians which are references to OT verses) and it’s standard about personal humility. I’m assuming that my interpretation then doesn’t contradict the sense of the Church? Because a Protestant I spoke to brought up a quote from a document which stated that I couldn’t interpret the Scriptures, to which I bolded the rest of the text which stated “if it’s not contradictory”. Do you know any other commentaries I could search through on this matter?

 

[pablope]

This passage is often used by Protestants to support Sola Scriptura. I have made the interpretation that this verse, “to not go beyond what is written”, is referring to prior letters that were given to the Church in Corinth that were un-inspired that contained the message of the Gospel. If I am wrong, please correct me. I am willing to be open to reproof. I own the Ignatius Study Bible: New Testament, which has a different, but solid interpretation of this passage which I agree with. However, I have not seen anything written by the Church which denies this kind of interpretation. Can someone please either help correct me or assure me that what I have thought is within the orthodoxy of Catholic interpretation?

Check this thread. It was debated here heavily. It this verse came out towards the middle posts.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=559335

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

This passage is often used by Protestants to support Sola Scriptura. I have made the interpretation that this verse, “to not go beyond what is written”, is referring to prior letters that were given to the Church in Corinth that were un-inspired that contained the message of the Gospel.

Have you made this argument elsewhere? If so, I’d like to read it. The suggestion that Paul is referring to anything other than scripture seems highly improbable given the way he uses the phrase “gegraptai” throughout all his letters and more importantly how he has already been using it up to this point in 1 Corinthians. Virtually every commentator I’ve read on this agrees that “what is written” is simply an equivalent expression for scripture.

It doesn’t follow from that fact, automatically, that Paul is endorsing a sola scirptura principle. But certainly those of us who do hold to sola scriptura are right to look to this verse for support for our views. After all, he says nothing equivalent about tradition of the church as being the norm, beyond which, we are not to go.

Cheers.

 

[Cruxis117]

Have you made this argument elsewhere? If so, I’d like to read it. The suggestion that Paul is referring to anything other than scripture seems highly improbable given the way he uses the phrase “gegraptai” throughout all his letters and more importantly how he has already been using it up to this point in 1 Corinthians. Virtually every commentator I’ve read on this agrees that “what is written” is simply an equivalent expression for scripture.

It doesn’t follow from that fact, automatically, that Paul is endorsing a sola scirptura principle. But certainly those of us who do hold to sola scriptura are right to look to this verse for support for our views. After all, he says nothing equivalent about tradition of the church as being the norm, beyond which, we are not to go.

Cheers.

Well, I’m willing to be corrected, it’s just an interpretation from cursory reading. From the notes written in my Study NT, I would not say that this refers to Scripture as the norm, but as merely the Old Testament Scriptures and the humility advocated by those Scriptures, through the use of Old Testament quotations in 1 Corinthians (1:19,31; 3:19-20). Thus, I think it’s taking the verse out of context to use this verse to support that view, considering the “written” would be the Old Testament, and thus would seem to make it “sola Old Testament scriptura”.

And as for that, Paul does say something about the tradition of the church:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Well, I’m willing to be corrected, it’s just an interpretation from cursory reading. From the notes written in my Study NT, I would not say that this refers to Scripture as the norm, but as merely the Old Testament Scriptures and the humility advocated by those Scriptures, through the use of Old Testament quotations in 1 Corinthians (1:19,31; 3:19-20). Thus, I think it’s taking the verse out of context to use this verse to support that view, considering the “written” would be the Old Testament, and thus would seem to make it “sola Old Testament scriptura”.

I agree that he has the OT in mind (as the NT was still a work-in-progress). But let’s not confuse the extent of the canon with the normative authority of the canon. The Reformers believed that sola scriptura was operative even before the canon was complete and so your objection doesn’t really address the view we hold. In other words, Paul seems to be saying, on the basis of all the scriptural arguments he’s made from chapters 1-4 in 1 Corinthians that scripture is the regulative principle for faith and morals. There really is no other plausible explanation for why he would tell the Corinthians, literally, “not beyond what is written” unless Paul himself thought that scripture had this final, binding authority.

And as for that, Paul does say something about the tradition of the church:[2 Thessalonians 2:15

[/QUOTE]

 

[Cruxis117]

I agree that he has the OT in mind (as the NT was still a work-in-progress). But let’s not confuse the extent of the canon with the normative authority of the canon. The Reformers believed that sola scriptura was operative even before the canon was complete and so your objection doesn’t really address the view we hold. In other words, Paul seems to be saying, on the basis of all the scriptural arguments he’s made from chapters 1-4 in 1 Corinthians that scripture is the regulative principle for faith and morals. There really is no other plausible explanation for why he would tell the Corinthians, literally, “not beyond what is written” unless Paul himself thought that scripture had this final, binding authority.

Where does 1 Corinthians 1-4 state that scripture is the regulative principle for faith and morals? I would say that yes, there is a possible explanation, which I’ve previously given, that of not going beyond the scriptural precepts of humility as Chapter 4 (and the previous verses from the previous chapters I’ve listed in the previous post) state clearly. He was explaining to them that they were acting proud, boastful, and that they were acting beyond what they were told to do. Thus, what the Scripture states:

1Co 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, 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. **1Co 4:7 ** For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? **1Co 4:8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!

And as earlier Scripture states:

1Co 1:19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
1Co 1:31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
1Co 3:20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”
1Co 3:21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours,
1Co 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are yours,
1Co 3:23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

This seems clear to me that Paul is referring to the previous quotations he was speaking of, that they are to not go beyond the humility that the Old Testament sets forth. Furthermore, though the Reformers may have thought sola scriptura as being operative before the completion of the canon, Protestant Scholars today are not:

An excerpt from the blog “Nick’s Catholic Blog”:

• James White: The main element of [Catholic apologist] Mr. Ray’s misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?
• ]William Webster: The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.* Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

You can find more quotations here: catholicnick.blogspot.com/2011/02/array-of-reformed-tetimony-of.html

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Where does 1 Corinthians 1-4 state that scripture is the regulative principle for faith and morals?

I didn’t say that it stated that. I argued that such is the inference to be drawn from what Paul did state: “Not beyond what is written.”

I would say that yes, there is a possible explanation, which I’ve previously given, that of not going beyond the scriptural precepts of humility as Chapter 4 (and the previous verses from the previous chapters I’ve listed in the previous post) state clearly. He was explaining to them that they were acting proud, boastful, and that they were acting beyond what they were told to do. Thus, what the Scripture states:

I agree that Paul is countering pride. But on what basis does he make his argument against the Corinthians’ penchant for personality cults and pride? Clearly he bases it on “what is written.” So while the issue at hand is pride (“puffed up”) and personality cults around Apollos, Paul, Cephas, the basis for his teaching and reproof of the Corinthians is scripture. To exceed that authority is “to go beyond” the boundaries Paul has set for them. But he can only set that boundary if he is already presupposing scripture’s normative authority. Many commentators believe that “not beyond what is written” was a saying or proverb that Paul expected the Corinthians to be aware of. If that’s the case, then certainly Paul is asserting a general principle and not narrowly restricting that phrase only the verses he has cited thus far.

This seems clear to me that Paul is referring to the previous quotations he was speaking of, that they are to not go beyond the humility that the Old Testament sets forth.

It sounds like you’re trying to restrict the phrase “not beyond what is written” only to those verses that Paul has cited thus far. If so, then is it reasonable to suppose that Paul would have given permission to the Corinthians “to go beyond” all the OT verses he goes on to cite after 4:6? (Of course not). Or put another way, can you imagine Paul saying, “don’t go beyond the five or six citations I’ve made so far, but feel free to go beyond the rest of the one’s I’m about to make”? To ask this is to answer it. Obviously Paul is stating a general principle with a wider application than the five or so verses he’s cited so far. Paul is saying “don’t exceed the authority of scripture,” and that is the very definition of classical Protestantism’s understanding of sola scriptura–i.e., that only scripture has that kind of final, normative authority.

 

[Mintaka]

It seems pretty clear to me that they were freaking out about That Day (now interpreted by Christians as the Lord’s Second Coming), and “going beyond what was written” in the Old Testament about it, making it sound even more extreme than any of the OT Prophets did. Probably that was part of the factionalizing, and probably some of the homegrown prophets and prophetesses were also being interpreted as worse than what they said.

And probably in connection with this, people were insisting on some kind of sexual morality that also “went beyond what was written” in the OT. There were Nazirites and vows and stuff in the OT, but some early Christians had some very extreme ideas. Alternately, some probably wanted to claim that Christians could do whatever they wanted and be forgiven. Either way, this would be going wayyyyyyy beyond the OT standards. The same thing was probably true of other things: finances, working or not working, extreme methods of prayer and fasting, etc.

But more than that, if people had even a fairly reasonable devotion idea, but they were telling people that they must must must do optional practice X or go to Hell, that would probably have set Paul off. Because that’s what he did, back when he was Superzealousman, persecutor of the innocent.

So probably… the obligations and expectations were supposed to be those of Scripture – the OT one – except where Jesus or the Church had ruled otherwise. (Admittedly a lot.) Everything else was free for people to decide for themselves.

It also seems that, alongside the factionalization, there may have been a good deal of philosophizing or assuming that they were know-it-alls who learned it all from Apollos and didn’t have to listen to anybody else (except their own precious selves). Drawing conclusions from what you already know is different from pulling it out of nowhere.

But what they originally wrote him about – that was asking if all the Christians should be forbidden to marry or have sex with each other. And without disrespecting the choice not to have sex, Paul wants to be perfectly clear that neither Scripture nor Jesus outlawed sex, no matter how enthusiastic about abstinence that he or Apollos or anybody else might be. Teaching “no sex for nobody nohow” would have been going beyond what was written, with a vengeance. What really was written was “a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife”, just like Adam and Eve. Paul may have thought marriage wasn’t really really needed anymore because the time was so short; but if Jesus and Scripture said it was okay, it was okay.