M
Matthias123
Guest
How do I refute a protestant who claims that 1 Corinth 4:6-7 teaches sola scriptura?
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
I think that the first question that I would ask of the person is what writings is Paul refering to in this letter?How do I refute a protestant who claims that 1 Corinth 4:6-7 teaches sola scriptura?
(For Clarity: The Text referenced here is
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?
When Paul wrote this, did he consider that this letter that he was writing was one of the “Writings” not to be exceeded? Or was he rather refering to the accepted sacred writings of that time - namely the OT.
Logically Paul would not have known that his letter was to be later considered as inspired and included in the NT and thus was not including his writings in that which is not to be exceeded.
Therefore, by this line of reasoning, when the Christian Church put together the NT, selecting books that were not declared sacred and inspired, or indeed not even written, at the time that Paul wrote this letter, the Church exceeded “that which is written” by adding books to “That which is written”.
Hope that helps some
Peace
James
P
praise_Jesus_1
Guest
I don’t think that supports sola scriptura at all unless you interpret “exceed what is written” as do anything other than the bible…
but at this point in time the bible as we know it wasn’t formulated. Other books weren’t written yet. I think if you were to take this as implying sola scriptura you’d have to leave out anything written after first Corinthians.
You can also ask your friend to explain this verse:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to
the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or
by letter” (2 Thes 2:15)
but at this point in time the bible as we know it wasn’t formulated. Other books weren’t written yet. I think if you were to take this as implying sola scriptura you’d have to leave out anything written after first Corinthians.
You can also ask your friend to explain this verse:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to
the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or
by letter” (2 Thes 2:15)
C
Cachonga
Guest
As a former Catholic and a believer in Sola Scriptura, I must compliment JRKH for an excellent side-step of the question. I would answer back thus, “Since the Church claims to infallibly interpret the Sacred Scriptures, what is the official, infallible interpretation of 1 Cor 4:6-7?” I might follow up with, “Of all the Scriptures we have today, how much has the Church infallibly interpreted?”, or even with, “If a particular verse has not been infallibly interpreted by the Church, then how can I know what a specific verse means?” Maybe another good question would be, “If the Church hasn’t infallibly interpreted a particular verse, and there are two different priests that interpret it in different ways, how can I know who is right?”
However, just to give an answer to the side-step, I would remind you that God is the author of Scripture, and Scripture needs to be taken as a whole (Old and New Testament together). It is irrelevant whether Paul had just the Old Testament in mind when he wrote this epistle. He was moved by the Holy Spirit, and God certainly knows what is and what is not Scripture!
praise_Jesus:
However, just to give an answer to the side-step, I would remind you that God is the author of Scripture, and Scripture needs to be taken as a whole (Old and New Testament together). It is irrelevant whether Paul had just the Old Testament in mind when he wrote this epistle. He was moved by the Holy Spirit, and God certainly knows what is and what is not Scripture!
What traditions did Paul teach? Has the Church infallibly declared a single word spoken by Paul (or any other Apostle) that we do not have recorded in Scripture? Did Paul tell them that Mary was immaculately conceived? Did he instruct them to look to Pope Peter for guidance? What Apostolic Traditions has the Church infallibly declared were taught by Paul (or any other Apostle), and when did the Church make these infallible declarations?
P
praise_Jesus_1
Guest
To your question about our infallible doctrines I believe there were many beliefs held by the church that were not necessarily declared infallible until a reason came that the doctrine needed to be defined clearly. (to prevent heresy).
We cannot know everything Paul taught if he did not write about it. But we look to the church to carry forward the traditions.
I don’t think one can assume that everything the Apostles taught by word is in scripture as well. 8 of them never wrote anything that has been included in the New Testament.
We cannot know everything Paul taught if he did not write about it. But we look to the church to carry forward the traditions.
I don’t think one can assume that everything the Apostles taught by word is in scripture as well. 8 of them never wrote anything that has been included in the New Testament.
P
praise_Jesus_1
Guest
I don’t want to get too far off topic but I would like to invite Cachonga to explain to me how early Christians practiced a belief in sola scriptura.
The New Testament was not decided upon until the year 382 at the Council of Rome. Here the Catholic Church chose the books that were the authentic word of God to be included in the New Testament.
If they didn’t have the NT scriptures that weren’t officially formulated until the year 382 what did they do for over 300 years? Did they actually teach sola scriptura without a finished bible? What books did the bible include before the New Testament was formulated? Could they have relied on oral tradition?
Did the Council of Rome declare sola scriptura as doctrine after formulating the New Testament, or let the faithful know that now that the NT books had been selected and formalized that they no longer need to rely on tradition? No.
The New Testament was not decided upon until the year 382 at the Council of Rome. Here the Catholic Church chose the books that were the authentic word of God to be included in the New Testament.
If they didn’t have the NT scriptures that weren’t officially formulated until the year 382 what did they do for over 300 years? Did they actually teach sola scriptura without a finished bible? What books did the bible include before the New Testament was formulated? Could they have relied on oral tradition?
Did the Council of Rome declare sola scriptura as doctrine after formulating the New Testament, or let the faithful know that now that the NT books had been selected and formalized that they no longer need to rely on tradition? No.
J
JRKH
Guest
As you mention below, the OT and NT need to be seen as a whole which is what the Church does. This is one reason that there are not “official” interpretations for every verse. Other reasons include the fact that much of the Bible can be understood on different levels and a passage may take on different nuances depending upon a particular situation.
Kudos to you also for sidestepping. (Perhaps we should get a dance team together.
)So - Paul was prompted to write this because God knew that - at a future date - this letter would be included in the NT.
So - Did God also know that the formal canon of the Bible would be changed from 72 books to 66 books 1000 years after it was determined by the Councils of the Christian Church?
You bring up a good point in that it is difficult to know what the ECF’s taugth orally that was not written down. The problem is that you miss the broader point that, even the things written down need explanation. You totally dismiss the reality that the Early Church evolved into the structure and beliefs of today based upon the very beliefs, understandings and Interpretations of the Early Church fathers who were trained by the Apostles themselves.
So “Oral tradition” can and does have as much to do with “inflection” and "What does “apul mean here” as it does with something that was widley believed but not written down.
Peace
James
C
Cachonga
Guest
So tell me, which heresy was stopped with the “infallible” declaration of the immaculate conception? Or the bodily assumption? Who were the heretics, and how has the “infallible” dogmatic declaration of this “apostolic tradition” stopped it?
In this, I agree with you! If Paul didn’t write about it, we cannot know everything he taught! And yet, you put your trust in a Church that claims to be able to infallibly identify and interpret these oral traditions. If they didn’t contradict written Scripture, I would still be Catholic.
Again, I agree. Sola Scriptura does not say everything they taught is written down. However, what is written down is sufficient (“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” 2 Tim 3:16-17 DR)
When Jesus was temped in the wilderness, how did He answer? When asked why His disciples violated the “tradition of the elders” by not washing before eating, how did Jesus prove this was a tradition of men that violated the Word of God? What did Philip use to convince the Etheopian eunuch that Jesus was the promised Messiah? What did the Bereans search to prove what Paul taught was true? What was it that Timothy knew from childhood that can instruct one to salvation? I could go on, but the answer to all of these is the Scriptures!
Are you suggesting that there were no Scriptures available until 382, following the Council of Rome? Are you suggesting that the writings of the Apostles weren’t being copied and spread around prior to 382? Are you asserting that the ONLY thing the Christians Church could rely on prior to 382 was Sacred Tradition? Do you think Peter didn’t recognize Paul’s writings as being scripture (see 2 Peter 3:15-16)?
praise_JRKH:
OK, so answer me this - I have seen other threads, and there are Catholics wanting to know if they have to believe in a literal Adam & Eve, if the 6 days of creation in Genesis are 6 littler, 24 hour days or not, did Noah’s flood really happen, and many other questions about the Scriptures. I find it disturbing that some of the Catholics who have responded seem to put more faith in Darwin than Moses (who was inspired by God). I find it highly dubious that just 60 years ago it was OK for Catholics to believe that Mary had been buried and is waiting for the resurrection, but in 1950 the Pope dogmatically declared that she was bodily assumed into heaven, and to not believe it is to be under the anathema of the Church. I could go on, but I hope I’ve made my point.
Are you implying that God was surprised that these things happened?
The problem with an “oral” tradition is there is no way to verify if it’s a true tradition or not (apart from Scripture, which Jesus used in the case of the Corban tradition of the Jews). The thing I like about the written Word is it can be looked at and compared to what is being taught. For example, I see nothing in Scripture to convince me Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. I readily acknowledge God could have done that, but I personally doubt it. Since there is no scriptural basis for this dogma, why is it a dogma? I agree that not everything Jesus said or did is in Scripture. I would also make that same claim for any biographical work of anyone. However, I would assert that what we DO HAVE recorded in Scripture is sufficient (as noted in 2 Tim 3:16-17).
M
mgull
Guest
My condonleces to you for making a poor spiritual decision on leaving the Church Jesus Christ founded.
you could follow up with that, but the Church does not infallibly interpret certain passages of scriptures until the Church deems it necessary to do so. The fact is this passage doesn’t even imply Sola Scriptura, which states that Scripture is the sole (i.e. single, only) rule of faith. Why don’t you read 1 Tim 3:15 and fill me in why God wouldn’t just be more candid and say that the Scripture is the pillar and foundation, or bulwark of the Truth.
And i follow up with the Church HAS infallibly defined certain passages of Scripture. e.g. John 3:5, Matthew 16:18, and there are six more to my knowledge.
We catholics don’t tend to interpret the Scripture passage by passage, but we do interpret it in its ENTIRE context, unlike all protestants.
an emphatic Amen brother!
No, it is very important if Paul had “just the Old Testament in mind when he wrote this epistle” because that’s what it means when people say to read it in context.
This statement gave absolutely no credibility to your previous statement.
After refuting all your claims in this particular post i have some questions for you:
- What Church is the Church of the living God, which is known to Christians as the pillar and foundation of the truth?
- Wouldn’t this Church say have around 2000 years of established doctrine
- Wouldn’t this Church have to be an easily identifiable living entity so I know where to take my brother when he sins? (matthew 18)
J
JRKH
Guest
So which “Oral Traditions” are the ones that “contradict Scripture”
The things you have posted as having issues with, the Marian Dogmas of the immaculate Conception and the Assumption, neither of which are dealt within scripture so how could a dogma in in contradiction to silence.
I see nothing in the above verse that says that Scripture alone is sufficient. If Scripture alone is sufficient, then why the Apostles, Paul, Timothy etc as teachers? Why didn’t Jesus write “The Book”
Indeed - OT Scriptures - So how do YOU know which books written after Jesus time were actually inspired of God and which were not?
I suggest you do a bit of investigation. The reason that the Books of the Old and New Testament were canonized is because different parts of the Church were using different writings in their lituries. You may not be aware of it but the Shepard of Hermas enjoyed a wide popularity while the Book of Revelation was spurned in many areas. The reason that the Church assembled the canon was to clarify the situation for the Universal (Catholic ) Church.
I suppose I could answer this if I had been able to find a question.
I imply nothing. I say what I mean and hope others will consider these comments on their own merits without trying to read anything into it.
I find it surprising and sad that you were so poorly catachized that you think the Bible can be seperated from the teachings and traditions of the Church.
I find it surprising that an intelligent person, who knows that the Bible contained 72 books up until the “Reformation” would accept as “The Word of God Sufficient for all Teaching” a book that had been tampered with.
Do you believe that, when the Church set the Canon, they got is wrong?
But as I said earlier, the written word contains no “inflection” or “explanation” both of which are supplied by teachers who pass on their learning to their students. Just as Jesus did with the disciples.
Nor is there anything to say that she wasn’t. So there can be no “Contradiction”.
No Scriptural Basis - Wasn’t it Alijah who was assumed into heaven (sorry if my spelling is off or it was a different prophet.) Seems like a precedent to me.
I would agree with this so long as the Bible Scriptures are kept within the Tradition from which they sprang. That is the Apostolic teaching and traditions of the Church.
Remember that when the Church Fathers were compiling the canon they had as their guide nearly 400 years of Oral Apostolic Teaching. this along with the Guidance of the Holy Spirit gives us great comfort and confidence in both the Bible and the Church.
Peace
James
J
JAGCath28
Guest
Cachonga,
You mentioned that you are no longer Catholic because many of the Catholic teachings contradict Scripture. You specifically mention the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption. Could you please show me/us where in the Bible it mentions that Mary was not immaculately concepted or where it says she died and was buried instead of bodily assumption?
Peace and love,
Jessica
P
praise_Jesus_1
Guest
In my previous post I did not mean to imply that there were no scriptures until the canon was formed… but that there were many different ones that were being used… some of which weren’t included in the NT canon.
I think that if sola scriptura was what God wanted it would have been something that came out of the Council of Rome after the NT canon was finalized.
As for myself I find sola scriptura troubling because the Council of Rome had to have some authority to declare what books should be included in the NT canon. By accepting the bible I accept not only those who wrote it, the early church fathers who taught it, I also accept the authority that assembled the NT canon. And in case anyone is wondering I do believe that the authority that selected the final NT canon was divinely inspired to do so.
Thanks JRKH for the very informative posts! And thanks to everyone else who contributed. Anyways I don’t think there is too much more I can contribute to this.
I think that if sola scriptura was what God wanted it would have been something that came out of the Council of Rome after the NT canon was finalized.
As for myself I find sola scriptura troubling because the Council of Rome had to have some authority to declare what books should be included in the NT canon. By accepting the bible I accept not only those who wrote it, the early church fathers who taught it, I also accept the authority that assembled the NT canon. And in case anyone is wondering I do believe that the authority that selected the final NT canon was divinely inspired to do so.
Thanks JRKH for the very informative posts! And thanks to everyone else who contributed. Anyways I don’t think there is too much more I can contribute to this.
W
WesleyF
Guest
By saying that none of the reformers used this verse to prove sola scriptura!
If the verse implied sola scriptura, it would be the most important proof of the same. But the very fact that the reformers didn’t use it is sufficient to prove that the verse doesn’t say what modern, “enlightened” Protestants would try to make it say.See this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=326213
W
WesleyF
Guest
In fact, this verse can be used against the protestant notion of sola scriptura!
Let us assume “not to go beyond what is written” means not to go beyond what is written in Scripture.
Ok,
Where does Scripture say that it is the sole authority? (Where does Scripture say Sola Scriptura?) If you say sola scriptura, it means you’re going beyond what is written!
Also, scripture itself teaches that Tradition is authoritative and that the church has authority. The authority of Tradition and the Church comes from Jesus Christ, not from Scripture.
So in a sense, we Catholics don’t go beyond what is written. It is written that we must follow both scripture and tradition (2 Thess 2:15). It is also written that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). So we turn to the church to tell us the truth regarding scripture and tradition!
So we are not going beyond what is written, it is the Protestants who are going beyond what is written when they say that scripture is the sole authority!
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t think the Church claims to infallibly interpret Scripture. Some of the few infallible things in Church teaching are derived from Scripture, others depend on Tradition. The Church recognizes that there are varying ways to interpret Scripture, and that the Faith continues to develop in this regard.
As to the passage cited, I think that some have made a good point that Paul could not have been referring to the New Testament, as it was likely that none of the Gospels had been written yet. I think he is probably referring to Scripture, i.e. the Old Testament, and to his own proclamation of the risen Jesus. The key message, to me, is not “so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written,” but the very next words, “so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another.” He is cautioning against assuming that we have an inside track on the Lord, which is a lesson equally apt today for both sola scriptura and catholic Christians.
I don’t understand sola scriptura because, to me, its clear that Christianity existed before the Bible, and could exist again without the Bible. Sola scriptura puts too much emphasis on the book, and not enough on the work of the risen Lord in our lives today, in my opinion. That said, discussing religion with sola scriptura types has certainly deepened my understanding of my own faith.
J
JRKH
Guest
In fact, this verse can be used against the protestant notion of sola scriptura!
Let us assume “not to go beyond what is written” means not to go beyond what is written in Scripture.
Ok,
Where does Scripture say that it is the sole authority? (Where does Scripture say Sola Scriptura?) If you say sola scriptura, it means you’re going beyond what is written!
Also, scripture itself teaches that Tradition is authoritative and that the church has authority. The authority of Tradition and the Church comes from Jesus Christ, not from Scripture.
So in a sense, we Catholics don’t go beyond what is written. It is written that we must follow both scripture and tradition (2 Thess 2:15). It is also written that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). So we turn to the church to tell us the truth regarding scripture and tradition!
So we are not going beyond what is written, it is the Protestants who are going beyond what is written when they say that scripture is the sole authority!
M
mgull
Guest
Why does St. Paul commend us?
see 1 Cor 11:2, which reads: I commend you becuase you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
How did St. Paul teach traditions to us?
see 2 Thes 2:15, which reads: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Amen
see 1 Cor 11:2, which reads: I commend you becuase you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
How did St. Paul teach traditions to us?
see 2 Thes 2:15, which reads: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Amen
- Status