Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[CatholicFireman]

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.

I’m with you.

I was kind of praying it would enlighten him to further look into our faith.

Maybe, he is.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

My Interpretation…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.

Once again, you’re missing the point. In my blog article, I deal with same context and the same citations to argue essentially the same point you’re making here. So we are in substantial agreement on the occasion for Paul’s use of the Old Testament, though I think you’re making a mistake in reducing this “simply” (your word) to a matter of pride. Be that as it may, let us suppose for the sake of argument, that Paul’s only interest here is to correct their behavior and not their doctrine (as if the two could be separated so facilely). Would that change the equation for sola scriptura? Not at all. For sola scriptura is the principle of sufficiency in matters of both faith and morals. Since pride is a matter of morals, we are still very much within the purview of sola scriptura.

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).

That pride is involved is clear from the words, “that you might not get puffed up one against the other.” Pride, however, is only the fruit of the problem, not the root. I’d invite you and the readers to reread chapters 1-4 up to verse 6 in order revisit the context with this question in mind: Is there any thing in here of doctrinal significance? And do the specific Old Testament citations Paul makes have anything to do with doctrine? Let me just point out some of the doctrinal context of import:

1 Corinthians 1:10-17:
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

As I noted earlier, Paul’s rhetorical questions in verse 13 suggest far more than the fact that prideful divisions are occurring in Corinth. The very questions have both Christological and ecclesiological significance. In other words, anyone who would claim,“I follow Cephas,” has implicitly put Peter into a position that only Christ rightfully holds. This is why Paul asks, “was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The very questions are meant to remind the Corinthians that having identified themselves too closely with the apostles, they are in danger of putting them in the place that only Christ rightly holds. This is not merely a behavior issue, Eric. It has enormous doctrinal implications!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.

Interestingly, both the NIV and the New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) also interpret “not beyond what is written” as a “saying.” The reason—as I’ve mentioned before—is that the phrase is introduced with the neuter article τὸ which often is used in the NT to introduce a formal quotation (see for example, Matt. 19:18; Luke 22:37; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14). But what is a “saying,” if not a summary of an abiding principle? Why would Paul want the Corinthians to learn the meaning of the words or slogan “not beyond what is written,” if those words or slogan could only ever apply to the specific texts he had cited in his letter and not to scripture in general? That’s the question you have yet to answer.

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.

Exactly. The same can be said of “it is written,” itself.

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).

Even if it were solely a matter of behavior rather than doctrine or even mostly a matter of behavior than doctrine, that would not change the principle to which Paul is appealing when he tells the Corinthians to learn the words, “not beyond what is written.” This is because Paul is presupposing that scripture (i.e., “what is written,”) is sufficient to norm not only their beliefs, but also their behavior. And that’s exactly what sola scriptura says—that the Bible is our final, infallible authority in matters of both faith and morals.

 

[guanophore]

As a side note to anyone going through this thread, I hope no one is dissuaded by this enormous string of posts I have placed this morning. But I am nothing if not thorough. I tend to give point-by-point rebuttals in CAF.

I am one reader who is enjoying your posts, Eric.

 

[guanophore]

An observation about OP haparker321 :
original join date : 14 April 2011

from his homepage:
…My question to OP :
I hope this isn’t all to sell a book.

If this is an inappropriate observation and question, please forgive me and delete this post.
I do not mean to offend. I am just curious about motive and intent concerning this and other threads started by OP.

He has been promoting his book since his arrival. It seems clear this is his primary goal, both here at CAF as well as on his homepage.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Eric, very excellent, thought out and presented posts. The Spirit is with you

Be that as it may, let us suppose for the sake of argument, that Paul’s only interest here is to correct their behavior and not their doctrine (as if the two could be separated so facilely). Would that change the equation for sola scriptura? Not at all. For sola scriptura is the principle of sufficiency in matters of both faith and morals. Since pride is a matter of morals, we are still very much within the purview of sola scriptura.

Hello again Miguel. If this is the case (you admit, or for arguments sake concede, that Paul is speaking on morals here) then to apply this standard to all other aspects of a Christian’s faith would be to “go beyond what is written” sense what is written here specifically deals with morals as you conceded.

Even if it were solely a matter of behavior rather than doctrine or even mostly a matter of behavior than doctrine, that would not change the principle to which Paul is appealing when he tells the Corinthians to learn the words,

Yes it does. If Paul is only speaking on behavior then you are “going beyond what is written” by applying it to matters outside of behavior (i.e. doctrines) since, as you admit, this verse is dealing with behavior only. To apply this standard to doctrines would be to go beyond what Paul intended since he was dealing with behavior, not doctrine.

Miguel, you cannot concede that Paul may be only speaking of morals. It completely destroys your position. Stick to your argument that Paul was speaking about everything when he penned, “do not go beyond what is written”.

God bless

 

[guanophore]

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”?

The fact that “Rome” is able to clarify ambiguities is because she has followed the apostolic command to preserve what was handed down, both in writing, and in person. It is not “knowledge”, but God’s revelation about Himself to humankind that enables the Church to clarify the ambiguities.

Jesus taught His Apostles “everything”.

Mark 4:33-34

33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

He showed them how to understand the Scriptures as He intended:

Luke 24:44-45
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures…

These explanations and understandings are infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit, who has led the Church into “all Truth”.

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.)

Actually, it is more a case of discerning between the many mss, and the other 400+ works floating around at the end of the 4th century,claiming to be the Word of God.

Besides, Dr. Seuss is most certainly quite historically reliable. If you think this is not true, I urge you to read him again. He has quite a bit to say about the culture and beliefs of his time.

1. 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?)

Do you think the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem were infallible?

1. 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?)

I can’t believe you are still asking this, after you have been here for a year. Your denial of the historical facts invalidates the Truth for no one but yourself.

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?)

Yes, if this were true, it would. But, as you have been told many times, the CC is not a “bible based” church as yours is. The Church, founded by Christ, was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Your accusation that "Rome claims that it is infallible on the basis of Mathew 16:18-19. " is then patently false, as the authority was given to the Church by Christ decades before that verse was written. The book of Matt. REFLECTS the faith of the church, but is not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source.

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.

Miguel, it seems like it is difficult for you to even conceive or apprecieate the working of God outside of your Holy Scriptures. Jesus is not bound by those scriptures, especially those that did not exist when He founded HIs One Body, the Church. He gave Peter the responsibility to feed and care for His One Flock. Peter passed this on to his successor,and so on until the present day.

Matt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

When reading Scripture (or any other work, I would think you agree) if one sees a “therefore”, it is important to look and see what it is “there for”. In this case, Jesus is saying that He is sending the Apostles with “all authority”. He has given them the Teaching Authority to show the faithful how to observe all that He has commanded. He did this decades before this event was documented in the New Testament. The authority of the Church does not come from the Scirpture verses, as you imagine, but from Christ Himself.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.

I don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that just because the commentaries you mention did not use the words “sola scriptura,” that they thereby disagree that Paul is assuming the sola scriptura principle when he says “nothing beyond which is written.” That’s an illegitimate inference from silence. To cite just one example, you mentioned the Macarthur Study Bible. I’m sure you’re aware that every footnote in that Bible was written by John Macarthur. And I’ll grant you that he didn’t use the words “sola scriptura” in the quotation that you cited. Does it follow, however, that John Macarthur does not believe that 1 Cor 4:6 teaches it? No. And to see why, I’d direct you to these words by the same author: “No man has the prerogative to go beyond what is written in the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 4:6).” Clearly Macarthur is stating the sola scriptura principle here without using those very words.

But would it matter to you if he had? If you could find commentaries that say Paul is assuming “sola scriptura” when he said “not beyond what is written,” would you then believe it? If not–isn’t it just a bit disingenuous to argue this way?

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).

This might be the single most objectionable thing I’ve ever heard you say. Simply quoting more text–which is all you’ve really done–does not thereby lend your argument any more objectivity nor make it any more “exegetical.” My exegesis began with the Greek text and then took a look at the major Protestant and Catholic translations. I dealt with textual variants and acknowledged the interpretative problems encountered in the text. I also used perhaps the most well respected commentary on 1 Corinthians (Gordon Fee’s). You can check that out for yourself here.

Second, the inferences I draw from Paul’s words cannot be dismissed as “subjective.” I have carefully argued each inference by making reference to the text, immediate context and wider New Testament context. Here’s a challenge for you: Do some research on the phrase, “It is written” in Paul and the rest of the New Testament. I count 31 verses just in Paul and every one of them is a citation from the Old Testament (and never the dueterocanon, by the way). Paul’s usage of the phrase is consistent with everyone else’s use of the phrase. It simply is a formula for introducing a citation from scripture. Most such uses function in an argument. The function is to ground one’s position in scripture. Would we expect anything less, given Paul’s background under Gamaliel? So when Paul urges the Corinthians to learn “not beyond what is written,” there really is only one safe inference: There is no authority higher than scripture. Let’s take a closer look at the Greek text of this precise phrase. (I assume you can read it.)

ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται

Just prior to this, Paul has applied “these things” to himself and Apollos. The exact referent of “these things” is unknown. I have argued that it is the argument he has made thus far on the basis of the specific texts he has cited, which you seem to argue as well. Now notice the “hina clause.” There are two in the passage. This is the first, and by far the easier of the two to translate. The hina clause states a purpose and forces the verb “to learn” into the subjunctive mood. Thus “these things” have been applied to both Paul and Apollos “so that you might learn.” The “you” is plural and clearly refers to those whom Paul writes. But what are they to learn? The answer comes in the very next word: The τὸ here introduces the words, “not beyond what is written.”

What to make of this? It is not subjective on my part to argue that if Paul wants the Corinthians to learn a saying or phrase–whether one already in vogue, or one Paul has just coined himself–then it must be for a reason. Nor is it speculative to argue that the phrase or slogan must contain a truth that Paul deems worthy of their attention. So what makes the words, “not beyond what is written,” worth learning?

I would surmise that the words themselves answer that question. “Not beyond” (μὴ ὑπὲρ) states a clear limitation. The words can hardly have any other meaning. Next we have “what is written” (ἃ γέγραπται). Possible referents include the letter itself, the specific citations Paul has made thus far, or to scripture in general. I argue that because “It is written” always introduces an Old Testament text, that Paul clearly has scripture in view here. Why would Paul expect the Corinthians (or anyone else for that matter) to suddenly make a very sharp distinction between Paul’s letter and the Old Testament or the specific texts he’s cited thus far and not to the Old Testament itself?

That’s the question you’re not answering. You haven’t begun to give plausible reasons for adopting such a restrictive reading of “what is written.” Further, given your own bias–after all–whatever “not beyond what is written” may mean, it certainly cannot imply sola scrptura from a Catholic point of view–it stands to reason that you may not have nearly the objectivity that you claim for your view after all.

 

[guanophore]

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.

The objection does not require this outcome, Miguel. The fact that the text must be interpreted does not equate that the interpretation will necessarily be in error. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Your claim is that the “plain meaning” and objective truth contained in scripture is evident to the average layperson.

History has demonstrated otherwise. SS has produced more fragmentation and disagreeement among the followers of Christ than any other single practice in all of Christendom.

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).

This is a derogatory, disrespectful, and false accusation, Miguel, and not the sort of response that is conducive to good discussion. You can disagree with us without insulting us, can you not? A simple skimming of this thread clearly demonstrates that none of the posters here have “abdicated responsibility for thinking”. This seems like a childish response of a person who realizes he has painted himself into an indefensible corner.

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.

When I read statements like this, I find myself wondering if it is really possible for you to grasp that our faith is not “reasoned” out of the Scriptures as yours is. It seems like it might be quite beyond your comprehension to believe that God is able to preserve His Word in the Church, where it was equally placed along with the Scriptures.

Those who receive the Apostolic faith have done so through the paradosis. We do not extract it from the pages of the book. We are not a “religion of the book”.

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.

I am sure it seems that way to you, being a member of an ecclesial community that has been separated from the Apsotolic Faith for 500+ years.

 

[guanophore]

I’d invite you and the readers to reread chapters 1-4 up to verse 6 in order revisit the context with this question in mind: Is there any thing in here of doctrinal significance? And do the specific Old Testament citations Paul makes have anything to do with doctrine? Let me just point out some of the doctrinal context of import:

1 Corinthians 1:10-17:
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

I find it curious that you would assert that the passage does not have doctrinal instruction, then quote this verse, which is one of the essential bases of doctrine.

Jesus taught that His Church is One, and that divisions and disputes should be resolved by taking them to “the Church” (the authority He appointed). This is a very clear doctrinal foundation about how we are to have unity of mind and judgement.

The very questions have both Christological and ecclesiological significance. In other words, anyone who would claim,“I follow Cephas,” has implicitly put Peter into a position that only Christ rightfully holds. This is why Paul asks, “was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The very questions are meant to remind the Corinthians that having identified themselves too closely with the apostles, they are in danger of putting them in the place that only Christ rightly holds. This is not merely a behavior issue, Eric. It has enormous doctrinal implications!

I agree, Miguel, and I think if you will reread your post, it will become clear how you are contradicting yourself. You are trying to purport that the squabble is not doctrinal in nature, and therefore, the principle “do not go beyond what is written” supports your position. But in the end, you also have to admit that it has enormous doctrinal implications.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Yes it does. If Paul is only speaking on behavior then you are “going beyond what is written” by applying it to matters outside of behavior (i.e. doctrines) since, as you admit, this verse is dealing with behavior only. To apply this standard to doctrines would be to go beyond what Paul intended since he was dealing with behavior, not doctrine.

This is a non sequitur. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Paul held to a principle of scriptural authority (which “not beyond what is written” strongly implies) and then goes on to give a specific application of that principle to behavior. In such a case, it would not follow that just because he made the specific application to one issue, that the principle that he invokes does not have a wider application to other issues, such as doctrinal issues.

To give you a parallel issue, consider Jesus’ words, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34). Here Jesus applies the words to a doctrinal issue since he is attempting to defend the Resurrection. Would you argue, on this basis, that Scripture therefore has nothing to say about behavior? Would we be “breaking scripture” by appealing to scripture to get people to behave themselves?

Miguel, you cannot concede that Paul may be only speaking of morals. It completely destroys your position.

How so, exactly? Walk me through your argument step by step one more time. Perhaps there’s something I’m overlooking here. And now ask yourself this. What would be the consequences for your view if it turns out that “not beyond what is written” really means “not beyond scripture”? If I’m wrong about this, no big deal. I’ve got plenty of other scriptures that state or illustrate the final normative authority of scripture. But if you’re wrong, then Rome would need to repent in ashes and sackcloth. There’s far more at stake for you here than for me.

 

[guanophore]

Paul is appealing when he tells the Corinthians to learn the words, “not beyond what is written.” This is because Paul is presupposing that scripture (i.e., “what is written,”) is sufficient to norm not only their beliefs, but also their behavior. And that’s exactly what sola scriptura says—that the Bible is our final, infallible authority in matters of both faith and morals.

No, Miguel. What Paul is doing is Catholic - it is Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles taught that Scripture is sufficient to norm beliefs and behavior.

That NOT exactly what SS says.

The fact that Scripture is authoritative and materially sufficient does NOT equate to “final, infallible authority”. Not a bit.

Scripture cannot be infallible, because infalliblity requires the ability to act, and also to be fallible. Scripture has neither of these qualities. The main error of the Reformers was to try to force scripture into this role, which it was never intended to play. Shortly, the Reformers wound up putting to death those who disagreed with them as well.

 

[EricFilmer]

My Critique to Miguel’s Response to Challenge #2

Note to Various Readers: The nature of this challenge involves what Paul meant in 1Cor 4:6 when he said to “not go beyond what is written.” Although Challenge #1 addressed this in great detail, Challenge #2 specifically treats how Paul’s statement is being applied. If Paul is making a Sola Scriptura statement, then he must be addressing a violation of Sola Scriptura committed by the Corinthians. As far as I am concerned, this means that we should see evidence of violation of doctrine. More specifically, the Corinthians would be expressing official beliefs (on matters pertaining to faith and morals) which are not properly supported with Scripture as required by Sola Scriptura.

To be fair, Miguel has stated (in this link and elsewhere) that the application of Sola Scriptura need not be limited to doctrinal issues, but can also address moral issues (in terms of moral behavior, and not specifically official beliefs concerning morality). But he has also asserted that 1Cor 4:6 does, indeed, address doctrine. As a side note, although I do not disagree that adherents of Sola Scriptura believe that this principle can be applied to moral behavior, I personally have never heard it done so. For example, does one ever hear someone say that theft is wrong because it violates Sola Scriptura?

Challenge #2

Give me the chapter and verse that shows the Corinthians elevating Paul, Apollos or Cephas “on par with that of Christ himself”.

That would be 1 Corinthians 1:12. To claim to be “of” someone is to put that person in a position of authority over you. That’s not problematic in and of itself because there are leaders in the church who do have authority over us. It is only when we elevate those leaders beyond their station when problems ensue. This is what was happening in Corinth, which is why Paul asks rhetorically, “Is Christ divided?” “Was Paul crucified for you”? “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Think about it. Paul’s questions are nothing short of an indictment. The very questions disclose Paul’s belief that by putting mere men in the place of Christ, the Corinthians have elevated them to a position that only Christ rightfully holds. Christ was crucified for us—not Apollos, not Paul and not Peter. We are baptized into Christ—not Apollos, not Paul and not Peter. The head of the church is Christ—not Apollos, not Paul, not Peter, nor any of Peter’s alleged successors.

The problem Paul is addressing (as presented in 1Corinthians 1:10-17 and 3:1-16) is that the Corinthians did not properly appreciate the fact that all Christians belong to a universal Church, but instead identified themselves as followers of Apollos, or Paul, etc. Moreover, it is apparent that each saw his or her particular Christian community leader as better than other Christian community leaders. But nowhere does it say that any Corinthian was declaring his/her community leader to be the head of the Church rather than Christ, or even alongside Christ. Nor is there any indication in 1Corinthians that the attitude exhibited in Corinth was in danger of elevating to such a drastic level.

As you pointed out, Paul’s words are rhetorical (for example, obviously the Corinthians did not think Paul was crucified for them seeing as he was alive at the time, and the same could be said of Apollos and Peter). Paul was simply reminding them that even though the various Church communities each has a leader, these leaders in turn serve under the true head of all the Church (Christ), from whom one is empowered for the sake of ministry, and from whom one alone attains salvation. Also, the role of the leader of a church community is a position which is to be in the humble service of the people. If I were to make a gospel parallel with this teaching, I would point to:

Matthew 23:8-12
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
[10] Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.
[11] He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;
[12] whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I do not see where 1Corinthians suggests anything more than the problem of pride, and Paul’s indictment could simply be a paraphrase of this teaching of Jesus.

Moreover, if the Corinthians had elevated their leaders “to a position that only Christ rightfully holds” then this would entail belief that such community leaders were divine and able to provide salvation. If this were so, they would be guilty of a far more serious sin than pride, because they would be heretical idolaters. Therefore, I it is reasonable to presume that Paul would not have limited his Old Testament quotes to ones that address pride and boasting.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

As I have stated in other posts, the problem that Paul is addressing is behavior rather than doctrine. It is one thing to take inordinate pride in one’s Church community leader (i.e., prideful behavior) and quite another to declare one’s Church community leader as head of the Church, considering him to encompass and perform the role of Christ (i.e., a doctrinal belief replacing Christology with “Apollosology”, “Paulology” or “Peterology”, so to speak).

And yet this is what you said concerning 1Cor1:13…

As I noted earlier, Paul’s rhetorical questions in verse 13 suggest far more than the fact that prideful divisions are occurring in Corinth. The very questions have both Christological and ecclesiological significance. In other words, anyone who would claim,“I follow Cephas,” has implicitly put Peter into a position that only Christ rightfully holds. This is why Paul asks, “was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The very questions are meant to remind the Corinthians that having identified themselves too closely with the apostles, they are in danger of putting them in the place that only Christ rightly holds. This is not merely a behavior issue, Eric. It has enormous doctrinal implications!

I could say that, with a little imagination, everything can have “doctrinal implications”. But you are pulling far more out of 1Corinthians than what is actually supported by the text. Consider what the following commentaries have this to say about 1Corinthians (and the first one is Protestant and the second one is Catholic):

1Cor 3:8 (& 3:4, 1:12) – “all are one”: All the human instruments God uses to produce salvation life are equally considered and rewarded for their willingness to be used by God. But all the glory goes to Him, who alone saves. Because of that, the silly favoritism of v.4; 1:12 is condemned.
-John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, Inc.: Nashville, 1997), 1732.

So what you call a doctrinal issue elevating community leaders to “a position that only Christ rightfully holds”, MacArthur calls “silly favoritism.” I can’t speak for MacArthur, but I doubt he would use the term “silly favoritism” if he believed that the problem within Corinth was to the extent that you do. In addition to this, I did not see anything in this particular commentary which treated the situation in Corinth as anything more than a problem of pride (and the divisions and inappropriate loyalty that results).

But if I understand you correctly, you seem to think that Paul was concerned that this “silly favoritism” could grow worse and worse until one day the Corinthians would reject the supremacy of Christ and declare Apollos, Paul or Peter as the divine head of the Church, in whose name people must be baptized for the remission of their sins, and through whom salvation comes. That is a huge leap in logic when one considers what the text of 1Corinthians actually says, and the tone of Paul’s rhetoric.

It is too much to quote in full, but if anyone is interested, a close to exhaustive examination of Paul’s rhetoric of this section of 1Corinthians can be found in Raymond Collins’ Sacra Pagina: First Corinthians, pages 67 ff.

1Cor 1:10-17 – Saint Paul takes the Corinthians to task for the strife in their community – not, it seems, quarrels over matters of doctrine, but minor disagreements due to preferences for certain teachers.
-José María Casciaro, ed., The Navarre Bible: The Letters of Saint Paul (Scepter Publishers: New York, 2005), 189.

This statement obviously does not need any further elaboration from me.

If it is still your position that 1Cor 4:8 addresses an actual doctrinal issue then I would like to see quotations from one or more credible Scripture scholars stating the same.

 

[EricFilmer]

Interestingly, both the NIV and the New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) also interpret “not beyond what is written” as a “saying.” The reason—as I’ve mentioned before—is that the phrase is introduced with the neuter article τὸ which often is used in the NT to introduce a formal quotation (see for example, Matt. 19:18; Luke 22:37; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14). But what is a “saying,” if not a summary of an abiding principle? Why would Paul want the Corinthians to learn the meaning of the words or slogan “not beyond what is written,” if those words or slogan could only ever apply to the specific texts he had cited in his letter and not to scripture in general? That’s the question you have yet to answer.

I have answered this question. It is perfectly reasonable to presume that when Paul told the Corinthians not to go beyond what is written, he was directly referring to what he just finished telling them what is written. Their misplaced pride in their community leaders resulted in them glorifying such leaders “beyond” what Scripture says about the virtue of humility and the inherent weakness of humans. So Paul reminds them about what Scripture says and tells them and tells them not to elevate humans “beyond” what these passages from the Old Testament say.

Paul’s comments also could, indeed, be a saying. As the Zondervan KJV Study Bible stated (which I quoted in Post #622) it is “Perhaps a proverb common among the rabbis.” But seeing as the rabbis believed in the authority of the Oral Torah, the would not have applied such a proverb in the manner you apply Sola Scriptura. Also, as will be shown below, it could have been part of ancient court language that Paul decided to use with his references to Scripture. But this does not mean that Scripture Alone is to be the final authoritative norm of God’s revelation.

As I have stated before, the phrase Paul used is difficult to translate, and at least one scholar went so far as to say that it was “impossible.” Moreover, the Sacra Pagina commentary on 1Corinthians refers to 1Cor 4:6 as “an enigmatic saying”. Moreover we read…

The phrase was certainly one Paul expected the Corinthians to understand, but the allusion is difficult to capture. It may be that the meaning of the saying was something like “there is no need to go beyond the letter of the law,” that is, act in accordance with the rules (cf. 2Cor 10:13; compare Rom 12:3). Thus the NEB, “keep within the rules.” Peter Marshall thinks that Paul cites the phrase as a warning against the kind of excessive behavior that stems from hybris. “What is written” would mean something like “measure” of 2Cor 10:13…

…Other scholars prefer to deal with the problematic phrase from the perspective of Paul’s rhetoric. Martin Ebner suggests that the enigmatic passage is part of Paul’s characterization of the Corinthians as children (see 3:1-2). They do not even know how to trace letters properly…

…L.L. Welborn suggests that the phrase recalls the advice offered, in the context of arbitration, by philosophers and statesmen to people who were about to cause disharmony in a community.

… “Not to go beyond the things that are written” was a meaningful injunction for the Corinthians. Paul cited this phrase as part of his attempt to urge the Corinthians to avoid factionalism and foster reconciliation. …It is, nonetheless, difficult today fully to appreciate the exactly what is meant by the saying to which he refers.

-Raymond Collins, Sacra Pagina: First Corinthians (The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1999), 175-176.

Even if it were solely a matter of behavior rather than doctrine or even mostly a matter of behavior than doctrine, that would not change the principle to which Paul is appealing when he tells the Corinthians to learn the words, “not beyond what is written.” This is because Paul is presupposing that scripture (i.e., “what is written,”) is sufficient to norm not only their beliefs, but also their behavior. And that’s exactly what sola scriptura says—that the Bible is our final, infallible authority in matters of both faith and morals.

My point is that there are multiple ways in which 1Cor 4:6 can be legitimately translated and interpreted. Your interpretation is that Paul is making a general universal claim concerning all Scripture throughout all time. This is only one possible interpretation, and it is the only one that reaches the conclusion that Scripture is sufficient to norm beliefs, and is to be held as “our final, infallible authority in matters of both faith and morals.” My interpretation does not allow for that conclusion, nor do the interpretations of the various Scripture scholars I quoted above (even those who see Paul’s statement as being a saying).

The task of at hand is to show that Paul clearly taught Sola Scriptura. From an objective viewpoint, the ambiguity of the Greek and the variety of legitimate “non-Sola Scriptura” interpretations of 1Cor 4:6 excludes it from clearly teaching Sola Scriptura. Deriving Sola Scriptura from 1Cor 4:6 is just one of many possible interpretations, all of which are subjective. Subjective opinion does not equate clear teaching.

And finally I have frequently brought up the problem of historicity with you, and you have been ignoring it. If you believe that 1Cor 4:6 is an obvious and plausible slogan representing an underlining Sola Scriptura principle, then why weren’t Christians interpreting it as such prior to the Protestant Reformation?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

This is a non sequitur.

No it’s not. Just because you call an elephant a tiger doesn’t make it so.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Paul held to a principle of scriptural authority (which “not beyond what is written” strongly implies) and then goes on to give a specific application of that principle to behavior.

Why would we suppose? Can you not prove that Paul held it? Also, “supposing” what Paul believed would go beyond what is written if we were to hold your view here.

In such a case, it would not follow that just because he made the specific application to one issue, that the principle that he invokes does not have a wider application to other issues, such as doctrinal issues.

Yes it would because you would be going beyond what is written. I am just taking your view of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclussion. Why do you get to “go beyond what is written” with “supposing” and"applying" this belief and that belief but when Catholics do it you believe they are violating a belief that you “suppose” Paul believed?

To give you a parallel issue, consider Jesus’ words, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34). Here Jesus applies the words to a doctrinal issue since he is attempting to defend the Resurrection. Would you argue, on this basis, that Scripture therefore has nothing to say about behavior? Would we be “breaking scripture” by appealing to scripture to get people to behave themselves?

The only person limiting anything is you. Let us not forget this. You are the one pigeon holing scripture to make it fit your already, admitted, preconceived doctrines.

How so, exactly? Walk me through your argument step by step one more time. Perhaps there’s something I’m overlooking here.

You concede (for arguments sake) that Paul is speaking about morals. You believe that Paul literally meant, do not go beyond what is written, therefore for you to take an application of Paul’s in regards to morals and use it for doctrine you are going beyond what is written since Paul wrote on morals here.

And now ask yourself this. What would be the consequences for your view if it turns out that “not beyond what is written” really means “not beyond scripture”?

That is your view. Again, I am taking your doctrine to its logical conclusion.

There’s far more at stake for you here than for me

Truth is at stake either way. Don’t down play the importance of truth because we are not readily accepting your fallible opinion on what you suppose the Scriptures are saying.

God bless you Miguel

 

[EricFilmer]

My Critique of Miguel’s Response to Challenge #3

Before I begin my critique, I would like to post the main teaching points of Miguel’s definition of Sola Scripture. I am drawing these bullet-points from the material in green text from Post #607 as well as from comments he made in Post #542 and Posy #630. Naturally I invite Miguel to correct anything in the following summary that he feels does not truly represent how he defines Sola Scriptura:

• Sola Scriptura is a principle rather than a doctrine.
• Sola Scriptura is axiomatic, a presupposition, a theological starting point.
• Because of these qualities, this principal does not have to be explicitly defined as such in the Bible.
• But while the Bible does not explicitly say, “Use just the Bible to determine doctrine”, it nevertheless drives us to that conclusion in a number of ways.
• Sola scriptura implies material sufficiency for matters of doctrine. Translation: Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation and scripture is sufficient to equip the believer for living the Christian life.
• Sola scriptura implies formal sufficiency in that it is clear enough (perspicuity) for the stable-minded believer to understand what is in its pages. Note well. This is not the claim that everything in scripture is intelligible to everyone all the time. Nor is it the claim that scripture needs no interpretation and explanation. It is simply the straightforward claim that God speaks sufficiently clearly in its pages to be understood. The main things are the plain things.
• Scripture is the final, normative authority for official teachings on faith and morals.

(See Posts #542, 607 & 630, for a fuller elaboration from Miguel on the aspects of these bullet-points)

In light of the material presented in these bullet-points, I issued Miguel the following challenge:

Challenge #3
Quote ONE Jew or Christian EVER defining Sola Scriptura the way you did, prior to the Protestant Reformation. Just ONE! And I don’t mean a bunch of vague references where you say, “And by this he means…” For at least a year you have been able to clearly define what you mean by Sola Scriptura over and over in CAF. Therefore, if it is “sufficiently” found in Scripture and if it was “clearly taught” by Paul then obviously someone could have defined it with the same clarity that you did at some point in the many centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation. I expect to see clear statements about Scripture being the ultimate and final norm of revelation to which both Tradition and the Church are subject to.

The purpose of this challenge was to provide strong evidence to support my position that Sola Scriptura is a fabrication of the Protestant Reformation. After all, going back to the above bullet-points, if the Bible “drives us to the conclusion” to “use just the Bible to determine doctrine,” (emphasis added) then over the collective history of Judaism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy we would expect to see at least one person prior to the Protestant Reformation who was “so driven” to articulate the principle of Sola Scriptura with the same clarity that Miguel does.

Moreover, Miguel says that Sola Scriptura is “axiomatic”. Of the different nuances within the definitions of “axiom”, I think the one that Miguel is positing (and he can correct me if I’m wrong) is: “A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.” So if Sola Scriptura is “self-evident”, and if people have been using Sacred Scripture since the time of Moses (i.e., well over 3000 years), then we should find LOTS of people prior to the Protestant Reformation defining Sola Scriptura in the same manner as Miguel does. So that is what Challenge #3 expected Miguel to dig up.

Naturally, I don’t expect a quote displaying the identical word-for-word elaboration that Miguel makes, but, if Sola Scriptura is what it claims to be, I would certainly expect to see people referring to Scripture with what is expressed in the above bullet-points. After all, if what Miguel says is true then neither he nor the Protestant Reformers made up these bullet-points; the bullet-points are “self-evident” in Scripture, the same Scripture that literally billions of Jews and Christians read prior to the Reformation. In light of all this, it is a perfectly reasonable for me to ask Miguel to provide a quote from just ONE Jew or Christian who, prior to the Reformation, ascribed to Scripture what is outlined in the above bullet-points. For example, I would like to see a quote from someone prior to the Reformation saying such things as, “Scripture contains all we need to know for salvation”, “It is universally understood, and self-evident from Scripture, that we should use just the Bible for the determination of doctrine,” etc.

Now, I ask those who are reading this to keep all that in mind and then proceed to the next post to see how Miguel chose to respond to Challenge #3.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Challenge #3

Quote ONE Jew or Christian EVER defining Sola Scriptura the way you did, prior to the Protestant Reformation. Just ONE! And I don’t mean a bunch of vague references where you say, “And by this he means…” For at least a year you have been able to clearly define what you mean by Sola Scriptura over and over in CAF. Therefore, if it is “sufficiently” found in Scripture and if it was “clearly taught” by Paul then obviously someone could have defined it with the same clarity that you did at some point in the many centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation. I expect to see clear statements about Scripture being the ultimate and final norm of revelation to which both Tradition and the Church are subject to.

I’ll give you two:
Jesus: “You err because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24).
Paul: “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” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Now, compare what these two quotes from the New Testament say, and now look back at the bullet-points in the previous post. Do these NT quotes teach the aspects of Sola Scriptura “with the same clarity” that Miguel does? Not in the slightest. I don’t see Jesus or Paul clearly saying “Scripture contains all we need to know for salvation”, or “The principle of using just Scripture for the determination of doctrine is self-evident”, etc.

Here’s the criteria by which we will determine whether or not these two passages imply what the Refomers understood by “sola scriptura.” (Emphasis added)

Challenge #3 asked for a clear articulation of what is encompassed within the above bullet-points. I specifically asked that you refrain from giving me “vague references where you say, ‘And by this he means…’” And yet now you are going to explain why those two passages imply Sola Scriptura. Since when did implication equate clear articulation?

1. Do these passages imply that scripture is materially sufficient to make their respective theological points? 2. Do these passages imply that scripture is formally sufficient—that is—clear enough to be understood by those to whom Jesus and Paul cited scripture without having to have a Magisterium or a body of traditions in order to understand them?

In order for you to meet the conditions of Challenge #3, you would have to find someone prior to the Protestant Reformation quoting those NT verses and furthermore saying something like, “These passages demonstrate the material sufficiency to make their respective theological points” and so forth. In other words, where is the “pre-Reformation Miguel” using these NT quotes to teach the underlining principle of Sola Scriptura?

The answer is clearly “yes” to both questions. In the first example (which can be multiplied), Jesus corrects doctrinal error regarding the Resurrection on the basis of scripture and nothing else. Jesus does not invoke a body of rabbinical “tradition” in order to make sense of scripture. Nor does he appeal to the “Seat of Moses” so as to have an “infallible” interpretation. He simply appeals to scripture—the fact that God is the God of the living—and infers from this fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, not dead. Likewise Paul presumes that if the Corinthians stay within the boundaries of scripture, that this will be sufficient to keep them from getting “puffed up” in that it will prove to them that Christ himself is the Wisdom of God. But this presupposes that when the Corinthians read the texts that Paul cites, they will be able to understand the point Paul is making. That presupposes that those scriptures are clear enough to be understood.

Once again, you are resorting to telling me what you think these passages mean. The challenge specified for you not to do that. Based on your past posts, I already know what you think these passages mean. The challenge is for you to quote someone prior to the Reformation interpreting these passages in the way you did as an elaboration on the underlining principle of Sola Scriptura.

So far, so good. But using this same logic, could not a Catholic counter that Tradition and the Magisterium are also both materially and formally sufficient since they too can be sufficient to establish a point of theology and can both be clearly understood by believers? But sola scriptura claims that only scripture is sufficient in these two ways. So what makes scripture a higher authority than tradition or the magisterium?

In order for this statement to satisfy the requirements of Challenge #3, you need to quote someone prior to the Reformation stating that “only Scripture is materially and formally sufficient” and “Scripture is a higher authority than Tradition or the Magisterium.” Once again, show me the “pre-Reformation Miguel” clearly articulating these things.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

The answer is that neither tradition nor the magisterium are infallible, which is why one will never find any example of tradition or the magisterium correcting scripture—but plenty of examples of scripture correcting both tradition and the magisterium. Thus, when we look at the relative weight of all these authorities, we find that scripture alone is the norma normans non normata --the norm that norms and that itself is normed by nothing else. To see how this works, let’s test this on doctrine X.

I’m starting to feel like a broken record (and I am old enough to know what that actually sounds like). Where is the pre-Reformation quote of someone saying, “Neither Tradition nor the Magisterium are infallible”? Where do we find someone prior to the Reformation saying, “Scripture alone is the ‘norma normans non normata’?”

What makes X true? Is X true simply because the magisterium teaches it? No. The magisterium can only teach X if X is already true. But the magisterium can help us to know that X is true—not because the magisterium teaches X—but because the magisterium is pointing us back to scripture, from which X derives its truth. The same can be said of tradition.

(Insert “broken record” message here)

Now lets imagine that tradition is asserting doctrine Y…

Rather, now let us imagine that you are capable of actually meeting the task presented in Challenge #3. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and energy by simply admitting that no one actually taught the principle of Sola Scriptura prior to the Protestant Reformation.

Do we believe Y is true simply because it has the pedigree of tradition behind it? Or is Y true because it is grounded in scripture? Those doctrines that are in tradition are considered true because they are first in scripture, which typically would explain why they became tradition in the first place. But is this true of every doctrine? No. Sometimes a doctrine can be found in tradition that cannot be found in scripture. In this case, the doctrine is either to be rejected as false or left without a mandate for lacking a sufficient foundation.

Actually, I’m glad you mentioned this. I intend on bringing this back up when I critique your response to my challenge concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Given this further elaboration of sola scriptura, consider anew these phrases from scripture: “Nothing beyond what is written.” “You err because you do not know the scriptures.” “It is written.” “Scripture cannot be broken.” All such phrases are uttered in contexts where matters of faith and/or morals are at stake. All such phrases are uttered with the presupposition that scripture trumps all other authorities, that our beliefs and practices are to conform to scripture (not the other way around), that scripture is clear enough to be understood by reasonable people, and that scripture gets the last say on the matter.

You don’t have to be psychic to predict what I am about to say. Quote someone prior to the Protestant Reformation clearly drawing the same conclusions you just did. Quote a “pre-Reformation Miguel” saying something along the lines of, “All such phrases are uttered with the presupposition that scripture trumps all other authorities, that our beliefs and practices are to conform to scripture (not the other way around), that scripture is clear enough to be understood by reasonable people, and that scripture gets the last say on the matter.”

I submit to you that nothing comparable is said in scripture about tradition or magisterium. Conclusion: scripture is the norm to which even tradition and magisterium must conform.

And finally, in order for this to satisfy the conditions of Challenge #3, find a quote from someone prior to the Reformation who said, “Scripture is the norm to which even Tradition and Magisterium must conform.” If this conclusion is made from a “self-evident” principle underlining Scripture then obviously SOMEONE had to notice it and articulate it prior to the Reformers.

 

[EricFilmer]

I am one reader who is enjoying your posts, Eric.

Eric, very excellent, thought out and presented posts. The Spirit is with you

Exactly Eric…

Thanks guanophore, RC & Philthy, and I say to all of you, “Keep up the good work!” I have been following all of your own material and found it to be very enriching as well.

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.

As one of the contributors to this thread Jason, I appreciate the affirmation. I likewise commend Miguel for sticking with this discussion, especially since the OP has apparently left him “holding the bag.”

And speaking of the OP…

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

An observation about OP haparker321 :
original join date : 14 April 2011

from his homepage…

My question to OP :
I hope this isn’t all to sell a book…

He has been promoting his book since his arrival. It seems clear this is his primary goal, both here at CAF as well as on his homepage.

In this thread Parker announced the release of his book on May 22. According to his current CAF profile, his last post was on May 23 (and by that I mean his last post, period – not just the last post made in this specific discussion). If one gives him the benefit of the doubt, one could presume that he is busy with book-oriented activities. (One would, however, expect that he could spend 20 seconds making such a statement in this thread).

Nevertheless, given the questionable quality of the responses he made in this thread, I could also theorize that maybe he discovered that in starting this thread he “bit off more than he could chew.” Stating that “Sola Scriptura is Biblical” and then continually attempting to defend his stance with the comment, “Well, prove that it’s not” is not the most scholarly approach to the topic that I’ve seen.