Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Miguel_Sastre]

Philthy said:

Implausible sounds awfully subjective to me, almost statistical.

Alas, what are we to do? You would have us turn the decision over to Rome. But how do you know Rome has any more knowledge or ability to clarify ambiguities than anyone else? Where did you get this idea that Rome is an “infallible” interpreter that could—if she decided—tell us what Paul “really meant” when he said, “not beyond what is written”?

I’ll hazard a guess based the probability that past performance more likely predicts future behavior in this case than not. To wit, most Catholic apologists attempt to make this case by using a version of the following argument:

1. Start by appealing to the historical reliability of the New Testament, for which we have thousands of manuscripts. (Problem: We also have thousands of manuscripts for Dr. Seuss. But that doesn’t make him historically reliable.)
2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus claimed to be God and proved this by rising from the dead. (Problem: How do we know these claims were not just made up by the early church? Surely we can’t at this point reply—because it’s in scripture—as that would beg the question.)
3. Jesus claimed that he would build a church and endow it with his own teaching authority and infallibility. (Problem: Where did he actually say the church would be infallible? Under what conditions? How do you know you’re interpreting these verses correctly? Are you using fallible or infallible interpretations at this point? Are your interpretations absolutely compelling, or more or less plausible? Are your interpretations necessary or merely possible?)
4. The church in question is the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome. (Problem: How do you know this? What is your evidence that the church in Rome is the only one that holds continuity with the church from Pentecost?)
5. Rome claims that it is infallible on the basis of Mathew 16:18-19. (Problem: The infallible church has just proclaimed itself infallible. But how did it know it was infallible in the first place? Oh—that’s right—because it inferred this from Matthew 16:18-19. But how do we know Rome drew the correct inference in the first place? Surely we cannot know this because Rome is infallible, as that would beg the question, right?)

Conclusion: You believe Rome is infallible because you presuppose it. If you attempt to argue for it on the basis of Matthew 16:18-19 (and/or other texts) then, unless you’re presupposing your own infallibility, you’re basing your argument on what you subjectively have determined to be a plausible interpretation of the text. Therefore no one gets around the subjectivity problem. Certainly not you.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Eric Filmer:

But the topic of this thread is whether or not Sola Scriptura is biblical, so I suggest we stick with that. Playing “devil’s advocate” let me point out that even if the Catholic Church is as messed up as you indicate that doesn’t mean that Sola Scriptura is true anymore than it means Mormon doctrines, Muslim doctrines, Hindu doctrines, etc. are true. In other words, one should be able to determine the truth of Sola Scriptura apart from the validity (or lack of validity) of the Magiesterium.

Although you have put your finger on the very heart of the difficulty, those who subscribe to sola scriptura are not interested in delving below the surface. Their main interest seems to be in contrasting their own opinion with the Church’s.

Personally I don’t see any difference with them than I do with Judas pointing out the mistake Jesus and the apostles were making by not selling the ointment to give to the poor. (John 12:1-8) It sounds altruistic, but actually springs from ulterior motives.

Sola scriptura folks do not believe in authority from God, despite the wealth of Biblical examples, and therefore condemn the Church for not interpreting the Bible correctly or simply having no need for the Church’s teaching. They see themselves as quite self-sufficient. They are proof against any amount of factual evidence to the contrary. I.E. the thousands of Protestant denominations all having opposing doctrines and interpretations.

My special admiration goes to the ones that dredge up all sorts of linguistic, philological and other sleights of hand that PROVE their viewpoint. They must PROVE their viewpoint after all. Protestants are all about proof if nothing else. That is why they are forever demanding PROOF for the Catholic viewpoint.

But none of this “proof” is anything more than smoke and mirrors, supporting non-authoritative teachings and imaginings.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ORACLE OF DIVINE REVELATION

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Philthy said:

You had claimed as one of the tenets of SS that the “objective truth” of Scripture could be known and yet your best claim is to admit that both interpretations are possible and that you, personally, fallibly, find one more plausible than the other. That is bogus IMHO Miguel - something for your consideration.

Again, you issue the same non sequitur as before. The problem is that you’re collapsing the objective pole of truth into the subjective pole. This is a rather modern—or should I say—post-modern tendency. If you would just stop to think for a moment, however, I think you’ll see that there is a difference between what scripture means (objectively) and what we believe that it means (subjectively). The two meanings are not necessarily one and the same.

Sola scirptura is not the claim that scripture does not have to be interpreted. Your objection amounts to this. Sola scriptura is proven false the minute someone tries to read the text simply because his or her subjectivity will overwhelm the objectivity of the text. What a solipsistic world you must live in—and yet you take it for granted that when you type responses to me—that I will find meaning in them. And I take it for granted that in replying to you, that you will be able to understand my meaning as well.

Apparently in your despair of ever finding a solution to this problem, you abdicated your own responsibility to think for yourself and turned that over to another whom you believe to have the authority to interpret infallibly (even though it seldom exercises this authority). And yet on what basis did you make such a decision? It certainly could not have been a rational basis. After all, if you read the Bible and reasoned to Rome as an infallible interpreter, you did so on the basis of your own subjective, fallible, and therefore uncertain interpretations. So your claim that you need Rome to decide the matter for you is only as strong as your reason for believing that Rome has the authority to do this in the first place. And yet if you were to subject your position to the same arguments you’re using against sola scriptura, I think you’d find that your certitude disappears into uncertainty, and your alleged claim to have objectivity will be swallowed up in subjectivity, that your plausibility will give way to implausibility and that your necessity will collapse into mere possibility—and a long shot at that.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Philthy said:

The crux of the matter is that SS does not arrive at a knowledge of the objective truth of Scripture without - at the very least - someone deciding which interpretations are “more plausible”. Such an approach is not SS, Miguel, it’s SS and something outside of Scripture revealing the alleged objective truth.

And so here we have objective proof that you have no idea what sola scriptura is. Again you’re collapsing objectivity into subjectivity,which leads you to define sola scriptura so narrowly that the moment anyone tries to read the Bible, its authority is swallowed up into the subjectivity of the reader. But the same would hold for any magisterial decree you read. If you were to say that the Rome’s position on justification was defined at Trent, using your same logic, we would have to reply that the doctrine is ultimately unknowable the minute anyone tries to read it.

The problem for your position is that you won’t claim that title for yourself and you won’t grant it to anyone or anything else either. You simply attempt to claim that the objective truth of Scripture can be known by proper exegesis, but that no one can actually claim to know when that exegesis has been properly, infallibly performed.

That is true. The reason is simple. If in order to have knowledge, we must first know that we know, then by another application of that logic, we must know, that we know that we know. This is in fact exactly what your position leads to once you posit an infallible interpreter. For now, on the same basis you posit an original infallible interpreter (so that you can “know”), we can demand infallible certitude that you “know that you know,” and so on ad infinitum.

Is there a better alternative? Yes. There is no need to posit an infallible interpreter in the first place. We only need an infallible object—and we have that in the Word of God. That will function as the stable norm by which all of our fallible (but not necessarily wrong) interpretations will be based. And that is the best we can do.

But if you feel otherwise, go ahead and show us how you know that God has given us an infallible interpreter. And then I will ask you if you’re basing this claim on a fallible or infallible interpretation. And if you stop to think about it, you’ll see that any argument you would make for an infallible interpreter is itself fallible.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

But if you feel otherwise, go ahead and show us how you know that God has given us an infallible interpreter. And then I will ask you if you’re basing this claim on a fallible or infallible interpretation. And if you stop to think about it, you’ll see that any argument you would make for an infallible interpreter is itself fallible.

That’s nonsense.

What you see as fallible is based on your sola scriptura viewpoint.

When you realize that the Church is the oracle of Divine Revelation, then you come from an entirely different viewpoint. The Church functions as the vehicle for Divine Revelations, so naturally, when the Church proclaims something with infallibility, it is in effect saying that this is Divine Revelation.

Now people who come from this viewpoint do NOT START with sacred scripture, they START with the Church. Why the Church? Because that is the originator of the books of Scripture. Look at ANY religion. You look first at the Church, then you look at its writings. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You don’t just read the Koran and then argue with Muslims that they have a wrong interpretation do you? NO! Only Muslims can say WITH AUTHORITY what the Koran really means to Muslims. Therefore it is ridiculous to try and use the Koran to prove Muslims are not interpreting the Koran correctly! Why, because OUTSIDERS have no business telling Muslims how the Koran should be interpreted. Same with the New Testament, non-Catholics have no business telling Catholics how to interpret Sacred Scripture because they are OUTSIDERS. They do not participate in the Church’s infallibility.

Those ecclesial entities that separate themselves from the Church, based on their inability to accept her authority, are naturally fallible, and they admit they are fallible. Therefore their opinions are entirely negligible. It’s only what the Church says about Sacred Scripture that has any AUTHORITATIVE meaning.

Now you may say we have despaired of finding meaning in Scripture, and therefore abdicate our thinking to what you call a third party. But that is ALL because of your viewpoint, which is UNREAL in the first place.

Newman said once that between Catholicity and Atheism there is no medium. What Newman meant is NOT that you are either Catholic or Atheist. NO. What he means is that in the great Spectrum of Faith, which has its two extremities in Catholicity and Atheism, everyone is either heading in one direction or the other. There is no resting place in the middle. Protestants are somewhere in the middle, but individuals are moving in one direction or the other. It is important to be aware. Where are you heading?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Eric said:

And you are also aware that he said that Church, not Scripture, was the pillar and foundation of truth. Such statements would not have been made by a true adherent of Sola Scriptura.

Non sequitur. We Protestants hold that “the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” and we hold to sola scriptura at the same time and there is no conflict between the two. A couple of observations are in order:

First, apart from scripture, you would have no concept of the church being the “pillar and foundation” of the truth. So you engage in a performative contradiction in that you appeal to sola scriptura in order to refute sola scriptura. After all, where else would you get this idea, if not from scripture?

Second, the language of “pillar and foundation” is metaphorical for that which upholds and supports something else. Foundations are what we build upon and pillars hold up the structures we build. The church, therefore, both grounds and holds up the truth. But the church isn’t the truth itself. Put another way, the church is not the source of truth. Scripture says that God’s word is truth (John 17:17; Pslam 119:160). The church, therefore, is the foundation for the teaching and preaching of the word of God and has the specific obligation to uphold that truth. Further, Paul says this of the church-which he never defines as the see of Peter, but rather as the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23; Col 1:18, 24); bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-32); and household of God (1 Tim. 3:15). No one single church is that “pillar and foundation,” but all of them are collectively. Your equation of “the church” with the Roman Catholic Church is both gratuitous and anachronistic.

So you admit that in verse 15 he is specifically talking about the Old Testament but in the very next verse he is suddenly making a Sola Scriptura statement about all the Scriptures that might possibly eventually exist?

I’ve never denied that Paul’s immediate referent is the Old Testament. What I deny is that “all scripture” can only be read restrictively so as to exclude any scriptures after this point. Your attempt to do so is ill-advised, if for no other reason than the fact Rome herself applies this verse to both testaments. I’d invite you to read Dei Verbum 11 if you doubt me. Also, consider the price you pay for such a restriction. When Jesus says, “scripture cannot be broken,” he is commenting on the citation he just made from Psalm 86:2. Using your hermeneutic, we would be forced to conclude that of all the scriptures we have that only Psalm 86:2 “cannot be broken.”

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never denied that Paul’s immediate referent is the Old Testament.

Fair enough.

What I deny is that “all scripture” can only be read restrictively so as to exclude any scriptures after this point.

Again, fair enough. However, you have yet to delineate how the early Christians and Jews recognized what was “scripture.”

How was it that they knew that the letters of Paul were theopneustos but that the letter of the Shepherd of Hermas was not?

 

[PRmerger]

Your attempt to do so is ill-advised, if for no other reason than the fact Rome herself applies this verse to both testaments. I’d invite you to read Dei Verbum 11 if you doubt me. Also, consider the price you pay for such a restriction. When Jesus says, “scripture cannot be broken,” he is commenting on the citation he just made from Psalm 86:2.

Yes, Miguel. You see the paradox, then? It is *your *paradigm that provides “such a restriction”, not Catholicism. For we do not rely on Scripture alone, but on the entire Word of God, as proclaimed by the Magisterium.

Using your hermeneutic, we would be forced to conclude that of all the scriptures we have that only Psalm 86:2 “cannot be broken.”

Actually, using our hermeneutic of both Scripture and Tradition we understand that we need not use only Psalm 86:2 as a referent for what “cannot be broken.” The Church proclaims otherwise, see?

 

[EricFilmer]

Continuing My Critique of Miguel’s Response to Challenge #1

For everyone participating in this discussion, before I continue my critique of Miguel’s responses to my Challenges 2-5, I want to delve more into his comments concerning Challenge #1:

I have already explained my view. I don’t know that I can be any clearer. I do not claim the authority to compel anyone, much less everyone to hold my view, so I do not accept the validity of your challenge on those points. Nor have I claimed that your view is impossible. I do claim, however, that it is implausible.

The crux of the matter is this. Does, “Not beyond what is written,” more likely state an abiding general principle? (My view) Or is it to be read restrictively so that the “saying” only applies to the specific texts prior to 1 Corinthians 4:6 that Paul cites with the formula, “It is written?” (Your view). It’s not a question of which interpretation is possible, but rather which is more likely. The fact that your side of the debate, on so many issues, has to make arguments like yours ought to tell you something. (Emphasis added)

In light of this, I think it is time for…

A More Detailed Examination of 1Cor 4:6 and its Context

1Corinthians 4:6 has generated a lot of debate in this thread as to whether or not Paul makes a Sola Scriptura statement therein. Although many of us have cited various passages from 1Corinthians, they were not always fully quoted in this thread. Even though I presume that everyone reading this has a Bible, I thought it would still be handy to devote a short series of posts clearly presenting such passages in their fullness. If I have omitted any that someone thinks is pertinent then it was an unintentional omission (and, of course, they are free to post the passages they also want considered).

In addition to this, I will give an even more detailed examination of my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 and Miguel’s than what I have done before.

For each of the following Bible quotes I will use the RSV. Moreover, I will present the various “It is written…” statements in blue text. I am doing all this so that the “it is written…” statements can be readily seen in the broader context of the epistle.

1Corinthians 1:10-17
(Herein we see the first topic that 1Corinthians addresses. Paul is concerned over divisions that have occurred among the Christians in Corinth.)
[10] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1Corintians 1:18-25
(In the following passages, Paul teaches the Corinthians how to overcome their prideful behavior so that unity can be restored)
[18]For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
[19] For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”
[20] Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
[21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
[22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
[23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
[24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
[25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1Cor 1:19 quotes Isaiah 29:14)

1Corinthians 1:26-31
[26] For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
[27] but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
[28] God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
[29] so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
[30] He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
[31] therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”

(1Cor 1:31 concludes Chapter 1 and it quotes Jer 9:24. Paul also uses this same quote from Jeremiah in 2Corinthians 10:17 wherein he tells the Corinthians to only be boastful within the limits God has apportioned.)

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

1Corinthians 3:18-23
[18] Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
[19] For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
[20] and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”
[21] So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours,
[22] whether Paul or Apol’los or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours;
[23] and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

(1Cor 3:19 quotes Job 5:13 and 1Cor 3:20 quotes Psalm 94:11. Moreover, Paul’s opening statement of “For the wisdom of this world is folly with God” is a paraphrase of what he said in 1Cor 1:20, indicating that he is still addressing the disunity among Corinthians problem.)

1Corinthians 4:1-13
[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?
[8] Already you are filled! 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!
[9] For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.
[10] We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.
[11] To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless,
[12] and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure;
[13] when slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Differences in Interpretations of 1Cor 4:6

The question at hand is: What does Paul mean in 1Cor 4:6 when he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”?

My Interpretation
If you take a moment to read the above passages from 1Corinthians highlighted in blue text you will see that Paul writes, “It is written…” three times as an introduction to four quotes from the Old Testament. Each quote cautions people against the sin of pride. After making these statements, Paul states, in 1Cor 4:6:

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren…” (i.e., the teachers follow the same rules given to students)

“…that you may learn by us…” (i.e., “Follow our example”)

“…not to go beyond what is written,…” (I’ll come back to this in a moment)

“…that none of you may be puffed up…” (“Puffed up” means to be prideful)

“…in favor of one against the other.” (i.e., the ramifications of prideful behavior is division in the community)

In light of all this, I believe that when Paul tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”, he is simply reminding them to adhere to the warnings about prideful behavior that he expressed earlier with the “it is written…” preludes (i.e., 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19, 20). After all, when we examine the entire verse from 1Cor 4:6, right after he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written” he says the reason why: “…that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against the other.” In other words, pride causes people to mistreat others (by favoring certain people over them), and this mistreatment results in divisions. Therefore, we are to heed the warnings of the Old Testament against pride, treat people with the respect they deserve, and this will allow unity rather than disunity. Simply put, these various passages from 1Corinthians address the behavior of the Corinthians – Paul wants them to conduct in proper Christian behavior (the virtue of humility) in order to correct the dissension caused by their previous bad behavior (the sin of pride).

Miguel’s Interpretation
Miguel, however, believes that 1Corinthians 4:6 is a Sola Scriptura slogan. Here he says that Paul is teaching all Christians not to go beyond the Scriptures in general, and that Paul is an adherent of Sola Scriptura. For example, Miguel made this comment in his Sola Scriptura Revisited thread:

You seem pretty confident that the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura… I see sola scriptura everywhere in the Bible. It’s lived out in principle by the people of God. It’s why Paul can tell the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written.” … You have to look pretty hard not to see it. (Emphasis added)

And from the current thread at hand he stated the following (keep in mind that the principle Miguel refers to is Sola Scriptura):

I really do think if you look at the passage as is, you will see that Paul himself is asserting a principle of authority and not only the particular application of that principle. In other words—the argument I am making is not, “so just like the Paul urged the Corinthians not to go beyond 5 or so OT passages, so we ought to not go beyond an passage in scripture.” Rather, I am saying that Paul himself is asserting “not beyond what is written,” as a slogan that the Corinthians are to learn and this therefore means, ipso facto, that he is teaching the very principle that stands behind the slogan. (Emphasis added)

Moreover, Miguel has claimed that my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 is “implausible” and that his is “more likely.” I would like the readers of this thread to examine my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 and Miguel’s. And just to make sure we all understand the implications of all this, take a moment to read Miguel’s definition of Sola Scriptura in the green text of Post #607. Apparently, Miguel is saying that a more plausible and more likely understanding of 1Cor 4:6 is that what Paul is saying in 1Cor 4:6 goes beyond a simple referral to the previous “it is written…” quotes, and instead serves as a slogan which represents all that is encompassed within his definition of Sola Scriptura.

Furthermore, if I understand Miguel correctly, he is saying that in 1Cor 4:6 Paul is ultimately addressing a problem of doctrine rather than behavior (and, as I stated earlier, I think it is about behavior rather than doctrine, and if I am correct then this limits the possibility of 1Cor being a Sola Scriptura slogan even more than it already is).

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

At this time let us take a moment to recall something Miguel said about my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6:

The crux of the matter is this. Does, “Not beyond what is written,” more likely state an abiding general principle? (My view) Or is it to be read restrictively so that the “saying” only applies to the specific texts prior to 1 Corinthians 4:6 that Paul cites with the formula, “It is written?” (Your view). It’s not a question of which interpretation is possible, but rather which is more likely. The fact that your side of the debate, on so many issues, has to make arguments like yours ought to tell you something. (Emphasis added)

This made me wonder if this aspect of the debate between me and Miguel was simply a Catholic interpretation vs. a Protestant one. So I decided to examine…

Protestant Translations and Commentaries on 1Cor 4:6

Amplified Version (from Zondervan’s Comparative Study Bible)
1Cor 4:6 – Now I have applied all this [about parties and factions] to myself and Apollos for your sakes, brethren, so that from what I have said of us [as illustrations], you may learn [to think of men in accordance with Scripture and] not go beyond that which is written, that none of you may be puffed up and inflated with pride and boast in favor of one [minister and teacher] against another.

Like me, the AMP sees 1Cor 4:6 addressing a problem of prideful behavior rather than doctrine.

King James Bible
1Cor 4:6 – And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

(Italics included but not as stress: The preface of the 1873 edition states, “Italic type was used in the KJV, as in the Geneva Bible, to indicate words in the English translation that have no exact representation in the original language.”)

Zondervan KJV Study Bible
(Footnote for 1Cor 4:6) – “learn in us not to think of men above that which is written”: Perhaps a proverb common among the rabbis. “which is written”: In Scripture. Our view of man should be biblical (cf. v. 7; 1:9, 31; 3:19-20; Rom 12:3). We should recognize man’s weakness and ever-present limitations. “be puffed up”: One of the root causes of divisions.
– Kenneth Barker, ed., * Zondervan KJV Study Bible* (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1999), pg. 1646.

Here the Zondervan team ties the “what is written” statement to the earlier “it is written statements” of 1Corinthians in the same manner that I did. Moreover, they see what is being addressed is the treatment of people, not doctrine.

The MacArthur Study Bible (NJKV)
1Cor 4:6 – Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

“what is written”: God’s faithful servants are to be treated with respect only within the bounds of what is scriptural (1Thess. 5:12; 1Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:7,17).

• John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV) (Thomas Nelson, Inc.: Nashville, 1997), 1734.

Like me, John MacArthur sees 1Cor 4:6 as addressing behavior, not doctrine.

My Concluding Statement on 1Cortinthians 4:6

Unlike with Miguel, my personal interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 does not see it as a Sola Scriptura statement. Also, none of the above Protestant commentaries I cited made any Sola Scriptura statements concerning 1Cor 4:6. So this aspect of the debate between me and Miguel is not simply Catholic interpretation vs. Protestant interpretation because at least some Protestant scholars interpret 1Cor 4:6 the way I do.

Moreover, my explanation of 1Cor 4:6 demonstrates a notably greater degree of exegesis than Miguel’s which means that my interpretation is more objective (i.e., going with what Paul clearly wrote) rather than subjective (i.e., an opinion as to what Paul might have meant). To put this another way, in order to demonstrate my interpretation, I do not need to go beyond what Paul wrote, but Miguel does. The irony is that in order for Miguel to demonstrate that Paul’s statement to “not go beyond what is written” is a slogan that represents the various teaching points of the definition of Sola Scripture, he has to “go beyond what is written.”

Therefore, based on the whole topic of this thread, I am still waiting for someone to prove that Sola Scriptura is, clearly and objectively speaking, biblical.

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Differences in Interpretations of 1Cor 4:6

The question at hand is: What does Paul mean in 1Cor 4:6 when he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”?

My Interpretation
If you take a moment to read the above passages from 1Corinthians highlighted in blue text you will see that Paul writes, “It is written…” three times as an introduction to four quotes from the Old Testament. Each quote cautions people against the sin of pride. After making these statements, Paul states, in 1Cor 4:6:

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren…” (i.e., the teachers follow the same rules given to students)

“…that you may learn by us…” (i.e., “Follow our example”)

“…not to go beyond what is written,…” (I’ll come back to this in a moment)

“…that none of you may be puffed up…” (“Puffed up” means to be prideful)

“…in favor of one against the other.” (i.e., the ramifications of prideful behavior is division in the community)

In light of all this, I believe that when Paul tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”, he is simply reminding them to adhere to the warnings about prideful behavior that he expressed earlier with the “it is written…” preludes (i.e., 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19, 20). After all, when we examine the entire verse from 1Cor 4:6, right after he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written” he says the reason why: “…that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against the other.” In other words, pride causes people to mistreat others (by favoring certain people over them), and this mistreatment results in divisions. Therefore, we are to heed the warnings of the Old Testament against pride, treat people with the respect they deserve, and this will allow unity rather than disunity. Simply put, these various passages from 1Corinthians address the behavior of the Corinthians – Paul wants them to conduct in proper Christian behavior (the virtue of humility) in order to correct the dissension caused by their previous bad behavior (the sin of pride).

Miguel’s Interpretation
Miguel, however, believes that 1Corinthians 4:6 is a Sola Scriptura slogan. Here he says that Paul is teaching all Christians not to go beyond the Scriptures in general, and that Paul is an adherent of Sola Scriptura. For example, Miguel made this comment in his Sola Scriptura Revisited thread:

And from the current thread at hand he stated the following (keep in mind that the principle Miguel refers to is Sola Scriptura):

Moreover, Miguel has claimed that my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 is “implausible” and that his is “more likely.” I would like the readers of this thread to examine my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 and Miguel’s. And just to make sure we all understand the implications of all this, take a moment to read Miguel’s definition of Sola Scriptura in the green text of Post #607. Apparently, Miguel is saying that a more plausible and more likely understanding of 1Cor 4:6 is that what Paul is saying in 1Cor 4:6 goes beyond a simple referral to the previous “it is written…” quotes, and instead serves as a slogan which represents all that is encompassed within his definition of Sola Scriptura.

Furthermore, if I understand Miguel correctly, he is saying that in 1Cor 4:6 Paul is ultimately addressing a problem of doctrine rather than behavior (and, as I stated earlier, I think it is about behavior rather than doctrine, and if I am correct then this limits the possibility of 1Cor being a Sola Scriptura slogan even more than it already is).

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Differences in Interpretations of 1Cor 4:6

The question at hand is: What does Paul mean in 1Cor 4:6 when he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”?

My Interpretation
If you take a moment to read the above passages from 1Corinthians highlighted in blue text you will see that Paul writes, “It is written…” three times as an introduction to four quotes from the Old Testament. Each quote cautions people against the sin of pride. After making these statements, Paul states, in 1Cor 4:6:

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren…” (i.e., the teachers follow the same rules given to students)

“…that you may learn by us…” (i.e., “Follow our example”)

“…not to go beyond what is written,…” ( - I’ll come back to this in a moment - )

“…that none of you may be puffed up…” (“Puffed up” means to be prideful)

“…in favor of one against the other.” (i.e., the ramifications of prideful behavior is division in the community)

In light of all this, I believe that when Paul tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”, he is simply reminding them to adhere to the warnings about prideful behavior that he expressed earlier with the “it is written…” preludes (i.e., 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19, 20). After all, when we examine the entire verse from 1Cor 4:6, right after he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written” he says the reason why: “…that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against the other.” In other words, pride causes people to mistreat others (by favoring certain people over them), and this mistreatment results in divisions. Therefore, we are to heed the warnings of the Old Testament against pride, treat people with the respect they deserve, and this will allow unity rather than disunity. Simply put, these various passages from 1Corinthians address the behavior of the Corinthians – Paul wants them to conduct in proper Christian behavior (the virtue of humility) in order to correct the dissension caused by their previous bad behavior (the sin of pride).

Miguel’s Interpretation
Miguel, however, believes that 1Corinthians 4:6 is a Sola Scriptura slogan. Here he says that Paul is teaching all Christians not to go beyond the Scriptures in general, and that Paul is an adherent of Sola Scriptura. For example, Miguel made this comment in his Sola Scriptura Revisited thread:

And from the current thread at hand he stated the following (keep in mind that the principle Miguel refers to is Sola Scriptura):

Moreover, Miguel has claimed that my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 is “implausible” and that his is “more likely.” I would like the readers of this thread to examine my interpretation of 1Cor 4:6 and Miguel’s. And just to make sure we all understand the implications of all this, take a moment to read Miguel’s definition of Sola Scriptura in the green text of Post #607. Apparently, Miguel is saying that a more plausible and more likely understanding of 1Cor 4:6 is that what Paul is saying in 1Cor 4:6 goes beyond a simple referral to the previous “it is written…” quotes, and instead serves as a slogan which represents all that is encompassed within his definition of Sola Scriptura.

Furthermore, if I understand Miguel correctly, he is saying that in 1Cor 4:6 Paul is ultimately addressing a problem of doctrine rather than behavior (and, as I stated earlier, I think it is about behavior rather than doctrine, and if I am correct then this limits the possibility of 1Cor being a Sola Scriptura slogan even more than it already is).

(Continued in my next post)

 

[CatholicFireman]

How come the OP hasn’t been around to debate this?

 

[Philthy]

And also, let me remind you that in the course of collective 2000-year history of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, 1Cor 4:6 was never interpreted the way you do. Moreover, none of these Churches nor Judaism ever taught Sola Scriptura. They cranked out plenty of catechisms and volumes of rabbinic teachings over the course of millennia and yet none of them ever taught Sola Scriptura. That’s a pretty incredible omission over a huge expanse of time of a principle that you say is sufficiently derived from Scripture and clearly taught by Paul.

Exactly Eric…

So, to use your expression, “This ought to tell you something.” What it tells me, at least, is that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant invention.

And an invention that you might - in light of the historical (and exegetical material) - deem not merely “implausible”, but downright unreasonable.

 

[inkaneer]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   Let’s not dance around here. There is no scripture verse that states outright the doctrine of sola scriptura. There is however, scripture verse that states outright against sola scriptura. That verse being 2 Thess 2:15 wherin Paul tels the Thessalonians to hold onto both the Written as well as the Oral Traditions they received. That verse, being scripture, is immutable. It is as valid today as it was when Paul wrote it. In light of that and the common belief among all christians that there is no contradiction in the scriptures I ask the question of how could the scriptures deny and support sola scriptura at the same time? Sola scriptura is a tradition of 16th century man that Jesus warned us about that would lead many of the elect astray.
   
   Now to address the passages listed by the OP as suggestive of sola scriptura and show they suggest no such thing.
   1. Proverbs 30:5 “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”
   Words can be spoken or written so where is the hint of sola scriptura?
   1. Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
   Again, words can be spoken or written so where is the hint of sola scriptura?
   1. Matthew 4:4"But he answered, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’
   Yes that is what is written but so what?
   1. 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”
   This one has been beaten to death so many times I’m surprised it is still being used. But once more the verse says** ALL **scripture it does not say Only scripture. BIG difference there.
   1. Deuteronomy 8:3 “And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.”
   How this supports sola scriptura is beyond me. I suppose if you picture God spitting out pieces of paper or parchment with the scriptures written on them that would be the only way.
   
   I will say this. If these bible verses are the best evidence that one could provide for sola scriptura then sola scriptura crumbles under the weight of 2 Thess 2:15:
   
   "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
   
   It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
   
   Continued…

 

[inkaneer]

PART II

Continuing…

Now let’s look at some fracts about sola scriptura. It was invented by man in the 16th century. The man was Martin Luther. Luther had a long standing problem with authority. He was a victim of child abuse both physical and psychological by both his parents. This is undeniable if one reads Luther’s own account of his childhood wherein he describes how his mother beat him till he bled because of what Luther describes as “an insignificant nut”. Luther writes how he could never forgive his father for his actions. Read Luther own words on this. As a result Luther rebelled against his parents wishes that he become a lawyer and ran off to enter the Augustinian order and was later ordained as a priest. There Luther was free of his parent’s authority but, as he soon learned, he was now subject to the authority of his superiors in the order and ultimately to the authority of the church. Working under the stress of a great workload Luther again rebelled. Using the evils that existed in the church at the time. He left the Augustinian order and the church. Luther ran away again. He denied 1500 years of church teaching that both the Oral and Written Teachings were authoritative and accepted only the authority of the scriptures. Here was an authority that Luther could now interpret as he saw fit. Scripture would mean what Luther wanted it to mean. All was well as long as it was Luther who was doing the interpreting. But others soon came along and interpreted scripture differently. Luther would fly into a rage that anyone would dare do such a thing. Read Luther’s own words on this and not those of some protestant spin doctor. The basic underlying doctrine of all protestantism was the result of a child abuse victim’s reaction to authority. Thus was born the greatest weapon hell ever created to divide and fractionalize the children of God. Misrepresented as the “Protestant Reformation” it reformed nothing. It was a theological rebellion that rode the back of the beginnings of the concept of Nationalism. Jesus foresaw it coming. That is why he prayed that His followers be one as He and the Father were [and are] one. Now five centuries beyond Luther we see the damage caused by Luther. Protestantism has morphed into thousands of denominations and sects. Basic beliefs of the early church such as baptism, the episcopcy and repentance, to name but a few, are now being cast aside. Even beliefs that the original “reformers” held as worthy of belief such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary without sin, the Trinity and others are also cast aside. A Jewish man once told me that when you have two Jews you often get three opinions. With protestantism it is a bit different. With three protestants you often get two opinions and one new denomination. I don’t know what the number of protestant denominations in the world or the U.S. really is. Whether it be 40,000 or 5,000 is immaterial in my opinion. What is material is, thanks to sola scriptura, that there is more than one. And what is more important is that tomorrow, next week or maybe next month there will be more than what there is today.

 

[Ignatius]

How come the OP hasn’t been around to debate this?

I’m praying that he read the posts, charitably did the scholarship required, and came to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is clearly a self refuting, false doctrine of man and so has rejected it.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

This thread has the makings of a good book! The wealth of information and knowledge here are beyond impressive. I commend Miguel for sticking with it and drawing out the material in a manner that has solidified my position in favor of Magisterium.

I suspect that context is a primary issue with 1 Cor 4:6 regarding Miguel’s slogan. I agree that Paul is addressing the behavior of the Corinthians. I also see where Miguel interprets this an address to doctrine. The context suggests to me that Paul is addressing behavior that has the makings of doctrinal error. Is this an early example of Magisterium at work in the early Church? Is Paul using the authority invested in him by Christ and the Holy Spirit to prevent this matter from becoming doctrinal error?

I would be curious to know how the context would be seen if this passage were part of a secular work devoid of slogans or religious implications, that is to say, strictly in a literary context. Would a parallel in this sense yield the same arguments?