What does the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written" mean?

[Cathoholic]

And here are the salient quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas so you may have reference to them as well . . . .

Certainly even if an ANGEL teaches a different doctrine than they were already given (as St. Paul even explicitly says in Galatians 1:8) this new doctrine is to be rejected, even if this new doctrine is from Paul or Timothy, etc. themselves. Truth cannot change.

Let’s listen to St. Thomas on this:

**St. Thomas Aquinas ** In regard to the first it should be noted that above when the Apostle tried to repress the rivalry about ministers among the Corinthians, he had used the names of good ministers of Christ, as when he said: “Each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas’” (1 Cor. 1:12) and again: “Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas” (1 Cor. 3:22). But in fact they were not glorying in Christ’s good ministers or disagreeing over them but over the false apostles, whom he chose not to name, lest it seem that he was speaking against them from hatred or envy.

Rather he had employed his own name and the names of other good preachers. And that is what he is saying now: But all this, brethren, namely, what I have said about the ministers in whom you glory and for whom you compete, I have applied to myself and Apollos. For it says in Pr (1:6): “To understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles,” and this for your benefit: “All things are for your sakes” (2 Cor 4:15); that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ’s ministers, against another [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the foregoing; for Wis (4:19) states: “He will dash them puffed up and speechless to the ground.

We just saw the context of 1st Corinthians as it relates to 1st Corinthians 4:6 in the preceding post (1st CORINTHIANS 1:1-6, 10-13, 19-20, 2:12-16, 3:1-7, 18-23, 4:1-2, 6-7, 14-17).

Let’s listen to some more of St. Thomas Aquinas on this portion of 1st Corinthians:

St. Thomas Aquinas Having rebuked the Corinthians for glorying in certain ministers, the Apostle now attacks them for looking down on other ministers. In regard to this he does two things: first, he censures their guilt; secondly, he concentrates on correcting them (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he censures their rashness in judging ill of ministers; secondly, their arrogance in looking down on ministers of Christ (v. 6). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows what should be assuredly felt about Christ’s ministers; secondly, that they should not be judged rashly (v. 2). . . .

. . . After berating the Corinthians for the rashness with which they judged Christ’s ministers, the Apostle now censures the self-satisfaction with which they scorned Christ’s ministers. In regard to his he does three things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 7); thirdly, be belittles their contemptuous attitude (v. 8).

In context; the “that which is written”, that St. Paul is talking about, concerns what he just said in the preceding text (1st Corinthians 3:19) . . . that is, to obey proper authority and do NOT have dissensions among you following after worldly wisdom. THAT’S the “which is written” that St. Paul is alluding to in 1st Corinthians 4:6.

In 1st Corinthians 4:6, St. Paul is NOT teaching sola Scriptura but rather quite the opposite.

The reason I wanted to make this last point, is that some sola Scriptura followers, try to pass off 1st Corinthians 4:6 as St. Paul some how teaching sola Scriptura which is false and impossible when the context is considered.

** Above translation from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on 1st Corinthians translated by Fabian Larcher, O. P.

 

[bbbeatt]

You just got rid of the Trinity. It is not “expressly stated,” it is derived from passages that each teach a separate part of it (“There is one God,” “Jesus is God,” “The Father is God,” etc.)

Besides, even if we went by your standards 1 Cor. 4:6 still doesn’t mention the word “expressly.” You are adding that to the text and therefore violating your own standard. Sola Scriptura contradicts the statement, “Hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or by a letter from us.” 2 Thess. 2:15. You can’t have Sola Scriptura if the Scriptura tells you to have something else.

Trinity: No, I got rid of the word “Trinity”. I didn’t get rid of “God” or the 3 persons of the Godhead as described by separate scriptures.

Expressly is not in 1 Cor 4:6: If we stick with substance rather than form, a doctrine that is paraphrased to have an identical meaning to the scripture could be said to be “expressly stated” in substance. But, why alter the doctrine as stated? Usually a paraphrase adds a little or subtracts a little, which is what we aren’t supposed to do.

“Hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or by a letter from us.” 2 Thess. 2:15 What was spoken orally to them was spoken to THEM. We don’t have a record of what they said orally. All we have are the written accounts. And no truth taught orally will contradict the scripture.

If you are claiming that tradition may establish doctrine, you are contradicting 1 Cor 5:6 “DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN”.

God Bless

 

[bbbeatt]

BBBeat, I was raised in a denomination, very popular and numerous in the south and southwest that had had “do not go beyond what is written” as a byword or slogan.

Others included “no name but the divine. no book but the bible” etc. They also called themselves Christians only, and thought they were the only Christians even though they have only existed since 1906.

They took this to such extremes that they had no musical instruments in church, no flowers no candles. Why, because they weren’t ordered to be done in the bible. And according to this denomination anything said or done in church had to have permission from the bible.

This is obviously false since the church existed for nearly 400 years before the bible New Testament was canonized and put into a book, and the church did just fine for all those years.

Paul is the one who wrote “DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN” 1 Cor. 4:6 . Deuteronomy 12:32 is similar “You must diligently observe everything that I command you; DO NOT ADD TO IT or TAKE ANYTHING FROM IT.”

Ironically, it appears that the denomination you described came up with a doctrine that “added to it”… going beyond what was written. They might have well have claimed that it was wrong to eat potatoes since the word potato is not in the Bible.

DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN makes great sense. Otherwise, men can come up with any doctrine they want… create their own religion… Many have erred in this way. May God convict me of any way that I have so erred.

My God bless you richly!

 

[PoorKnight]

Trinity: No, I got rid of the word “Trinity”. I didn’t get rid of “God” or the 3 persons of the Godhead as described by separate scriptures.

Sir, I’d beg to differ. If you were to talk to some well-informed Jehovah’s Witnesses they’d run you ragged from the “Bible Only”. I’ve read testimonials from Christians who have talked to JW’s for a year strait from the Bible Alone and gotten no where. Here’s just one example: whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/protestant-converts/evangelical/item/144-evangelical-convert-renee-lin

Many Christians agree with this - in both directions: theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/About.website

This is a “Christian” group that has denied the Trinity because it CANNOT be proven from the “Bible Alone”…

bbbeatt:

… What was spoken orally to them was spoken to THEM. We don’t have a record of what they said orally…

I’d lovingly like to point out that the same greek word ‘paradosis’ (tradition) that you’d probably use to condemn the Catholic Church’s Tradition as man-made , is the same greek word used in 2 Thes 2:15 for tradition, the same word that Paul states is THE WORD OF GOD 1 thes 2:15, the same word that Paul commends the Corinthians for holding on to (1 cor 11:2) the same word used in verb form (entrust or pass on) in 2 Tim 2:2 commanding us to hand on the tradition… I could go on but you get the idea.

IF what you propose is true then I ask, how were the Christians of the first 20 years ‘saved’ when there wasn’t a single verse of the New Testament written?

IF what you propose is true then it proves too much as well. It would prove that we shouldn’t go beyond 1st Corinthians correct?

If what you propose is true then we should have NEVER gone beyond Deuteronomy 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it…” This is one of the reasons why the Sadducees were “Sola Torah”.

The other biggest problem you have with relying on 1 Cor 5:6 is that it cannot be proved in the Scriptures Alone that the book of Corinthians (or any book) should be in Scripture. It also cannot be proved, from Scripture Alone, that the Cannon of Scripture is closed. So why shouldn’t you be able to edit the books in the Bible as you see fit - like Martin Luther did?

Scripture Alone is also not logical. The Scriptures cannot interpret themselves because the instant your eyes see the words YOU are interpreting them. This is why there are 38,000+ Christian groups all cllaiming ‘Bible Alone’ that cannot agree on the smallest things from robes for ministers or instruments being allowed to HUGE things like the nature of Baptism, if it does anything, who it’s for to How one gets to heaven!

It’s been this way from the beginning of the reformation. Martin Luther had one idea of what ‘Sola Scriptura’ meant, John Calvin had another and - although I have not read much myself - my understanding is that Zwingli had yet another way. Best yet, NONE of their definitions are in “Sola Scriptura”.

This poses a huge question: who is right? God is perfect and there is only One way: God’s way. God gave us the Scriptures and there is only One way to interpret Scripture: God’s way - the Truth.

So the question becomes, did God leave us a way to find His Interpretation of Scripture or not? If No, then we are all lost and He’s a Liar because there would be no way to know for sure what God wants of us and he promissed not to leave us orphan. If God didn’t leave us a way to infallibly interpret Scriptures, we cannot be sure of anything: when someone can interpret “This is My Body” as “This is NOT by Body” how can we be sure Jesus IS the Way the Truth and the Life. Couldn’t that be interpreted “Jesus is NOT the Way, the Truth and the Life”?

If God did leave us a way to find His Interpretation of Scripture then how do we find His One way of Interpreting Scripture?

What does the Bible say? Well let me ask you this: what is the pillar and foundation of truth? What do you use to decided between two arguing Christians? What will make known the manifest Wisdom of God? If you’re “Bible Alone” you’d have to say “The Bible”!

But what does the Bible ACTUALLY say? THE CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) THE CHURCH decides between disagreeing Christians (Mt 18:17), and THE CHURCH makes known the manifest Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

The Bible even says it is incomplete: John 21:25

The fruits of “not going beyond what is written” as you have defined it, are this: 38,000 divisions in Christ’s body when Christ wants us all to be ONE (Jn 17:21) that there be NO DIVISIONS among you (1 Cor 1:10) and that there is only One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (Eph 4:5).

38,000 == 1

What is the logical conclusion of ‘Sola Scriptura’? It is to believe whatever YOU want about Scripture. It is to be morally relative (well that’s what YOU think it means, but that doesn’t apply to me… I think it means…) It is based on the self (SELF-interpretation)…

It is a sixth solae… Sola Ego.

God did not leave us a Bible - Jesus never gave a single recorded command to write - He left us a Church (Mt 16:17-18) founded on Peter and the other Apostles (eph 2:20) with Peter given the Keys to the Kingdom (mt 16:18-19 again) given the orders to Shepherd Jesus’ flock (Jn 21:15-17) and to strengthen the faith of the rest of the Apostles (Lk 22:31-32). The Apostles, in turn, were given the powers of Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:16-19; 18:18; 28:18, Jn 20:21-23, Jn 17:18, Lk 10:16; 22:29 and many others) and passed them on to their sucessors (Acts 1:20).

I pray you take these points into prayerful consideration. God Bless you on your journey of Faith.

 

[bbbeatt]

Sir, I’d beg to differ. If you were to talk to some well-informed Jehovah’s Witnesses they’d run you ragged from the “Bible Only”. I’ve read testimonials from Christians who have talked to JW’s for a year strait from the Bible Alone and gotten no where. Here’s just one example: whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/protestant-converts/evangelical/item/144-evangelical-convert-renee-lin

Many Christians agree with this - in both directions: theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/About.website

This is a “Christian” group that has denied the Trinity because it CANNOT be proven from the “Bible Alone”…

I’d lovingly like to point out that the same greek word ‘paradosis’ (tradition) that you’d probably use to condemn the Catholic Church’s Tradition as man-made , is the same greek word used in 2 Thes 2:15 for tradition, the same word that Paul states is THE WORD OF GOD 1 thes 2:15, the same word that Paul commends the Corinthians for holding on to (1 cor 11:2) the same word used in verb form (entrust or pass on) in 2 Tim 2:2 commanding us to hand on the tradition… I could go on but you get the idea.

IF what you propose is true then I ask, how were the Christians of the first 20 years ‘saved’ when there wasn’t a single verse of the New Testament written?

IF what you propose is true then it proves too much as well. It would prove that we shouldn’t go beyond 1st Corinthians correct?

If what you propose is true then we should have NEVER gone beyond Deuteronomy 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it…” This is one of the reasons why the Sadducees were “Sola Torah”.

The other biggest problem you have with relying on 1 Cor 5:6 is that it cannot be proved in the Scriptures Alone that the book of Corinthians (or any book) should be in Scripture. It also cannot be proved, from Scripture Alone, that the Cannon of Scripture is closed. So why shouldn’t you be able to edit the books in the Bible as you see fit - like Martin Luther did?

Scripture Alone is also not logical. The Scriptures cannot interpret themselves because the instant your eyes see the words YOU are interpreting them. This is why there are 38,000+ Christian groups all cllaiming ‘Bible Alone’ that cannot agree on the smallest things from robes for ministers or instruments being allowed to HUGE things like the nature of Baptism, if it does anything, who it’s for to How one gets to heaven!

It’s been this way from the beginning of the reformation. Martin Luther had one idea of what ‘Sola Scriptura’ meant, John Calvin had another and - although I have not read much myself - my understanding is that Zwingli had yet another way. Best yet, NONE of their definitions are in “Sola Scriptura”.

This poses a huge question: who is right? God is perfect and there is only One way: God’s way. God gave us the Scriptures and there is only One way to interpret Scripture: God’s way - the Truth.

So the question becomes, did God leave us a way to find His Interpretation of Scripture or not? If No, then we are all lost and He’s a Liar because there would be no way to know for sure what God wants of us and he promissed not to leave us orphan. If God didn’t leave us a way to infallibly interpret Scriptures, we cannot be sure of anything: when someone can interpret “This is My Body” as “This is NOT by Body” how can we be sure Jesus IS the Way the Truth and the Life. Couldn’t that be interpreted “Jesus is NOT the Way, the Truth and the Life”?

If God did leave us a way to find His Interpretation of Scripture then how do we find His One way of Interpreting Scripture?

What does the Bible say? Well let me ask you this: what is the pillar and foundation of truth? What do you use to decided between two arguing Christians? What will make known the manifest Wisdom of God? If you’re “Bible Alone” you’d have to say “The Bible”!

But what does the Bible ACTUALLY say? THE CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) THE CHURCH decides between disagreeing Christians (Mt 18:17), and THE CHURCH makes known the manifest Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

The Bible even says it is incomplete: John 21:25

The fruits of “not going beyond what is written” as you have defined it, are this: 38,000 divisions in Christ’s body when Christ wants us all to be ONE (Jn 17:21) that there be NO DIVISIONS among you (1 Cor 1:10) and that there is only One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (Eph 4:5).

38,000 == 1

What is the logical conclusion of ‘Sola Scriptura’? It is to believe whatever YOU want about Scripture. It is to be morally relative (well that’s what YOU think it means, but that doesn’t apply to me… I think it means…) It is based on the self (SELF-interpretation)…

It is a sixth solae… Sola Ego.

God did not leave us a Bible - Jesus never gave a single recorded command to write - He left us a Church (Mt 16:17-18) founded on Peter and the other Apostles (eph 2:20) with Peter given the Keys to the Kingdom (mt 16:18-19 again) given the orders to Shepherd Jesus’ flock (Jn 21:15-17) and to strengthen the faith of the rest of the Apostles (Lk 22:31-32). The Apostles, in turn, were given the powers of Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:16-19; 18:18; 28:18, Jn 20:21-23, Jn 17:18, Lk 10:16; 22:29 and many others) and passed them on to their sucessors (Acts 1:20).

I pray you take these points into prayerful consideration. God Bless you on your journey of Faith.

“So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word[c] of God” Matthew 15:6 RSVCE

“Thus says the Lord:“Cursed is the man who trusts in man” Jeremiah 17:5 RSVCE

 

[bbbeatt]

“So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God” Matthew 15:6 RSVCE

“Thus says the Lord:“Cursed is the man who trusts in man” Jeremiah 17:5 RSVCE

 

[pablope]

“So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word[c] of God” Matthew 15:6 RSVCE

“Thus says the Lord:“Cursed is the man who trusts in man” Jeremiah 17:5 RSVCE

Are you not doing this yourself?

You are trusting in the tradition of someone…that someone’s interpretation which you have taken lock stock and barrel…and that someone is yourself.

May I ask…why do you believe your own interpretation? How do we know you have the correct interpretation?

 

[bbbeatt]

Are you not doing this yourself?

You are trusting in the tradition of someone…that someone’s interpretation which you have taken lock stock and barrel…and that someone is yourself.

May I ask…why do you believe your own interpretation? How do we know you have the correct interpretation?

The passaage states “Do not go beyond what is written” 1 Cor 4:6. When Paul wrote that, they had the Old Testament scriptures and possibly some New Testatment scriptures. I am not interpreting the passage. I’m just accepting it at face value.

If the New Testament is not God’s word, then you should not “go beyond” what is written in the OT. Since the NT is God’s word as well, you should not “go beyond” what is written in the Bible. God does not need man to reword what he wrote or add to it.

If tradition adds to the scriptures, then tradition has gone “beyond what is written”.

 

[pablope]

The passaage states “Do not go beyond what is written” 1 Cor 4:6. When Paul wrote that, they had the Old Testament scriptures and possibly some New Testatment scriptures.

And when you accept it at face value…did you take into account about possible other verses to explain and give context to what it is actually referring to?

And how do you know in particular Paul was referring to the OT? He does not say, does he?

And which OT-the catholic 46 book OT or the protestant 39 book OT?

And he could only be refering to what he had written previously? and how do you know Paul knew of other NT writings already?

So taking this at face value…would you then exclude all writings that were written after this verse?

I am not interpreting the passage. I’m just accepting it at face value.

 

[PoorKnight]

“So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word[c] of God” Matthew 15:6 RSVCE

“Thus says the Lord:“Cursed is the man who trusts in man” Jeremiah 17:5 RSVCE

And Catholics say “Amen”.

But you merely ignored everything else I said and posted two very true verses, but irrelevant to what I posted. I addressed these passages and explained how they actually work against Sola Scriptura - a tradition of a man, Martin Luther.

In all love: just ignoring the issue won’t make it go away. Please prayerfully review my previous post and let’s have an honest, charitable discussion about it.

God Bless You,

 

[PoorKnight]

The passaage states “Do not go beyond what is written” 1 Cor 4:6. When Paul wrote that, they had the Old Testament scriptures and possibly some New Testatment scriptures. I am not interpreting the passage. I’m just accepting it at face value.

If the New Testament is not God’s word, then you should not “go beyond” what is written in the OT. Since the NT is God’s word as well, you should not “go beyond” what is written in the Bible. God does not need man to reword what he wrote or add to it.

If tradition adds to the scriptures, then tradition has gone “beyond what is written”.

Brother BBBeatt, you just proved that we should all be Sola 1st Corinthians. No where does Paul say “Don’t go beyond what is written in the Old Testament and oh yeah, the New Testament which isn’t written yet…”

You’re adding to “what is written” to get your understanding to fit the Bible.

God Bless You

 

[latingirl]

1 Corinthians 4:6, “Do not go beyond what is written” is similar to Deuternomy 12:32 “Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it."

Any doctrine should be EXPRESSLY STATED in scripture before it is accepted as a doctrine of God. God does not need man to improve on his words. We have too many doctrines… man made doctrines.

So I guess we shouldn’t accept the Trinity?

 

[bbbeatt]

And when you accept it at face value…did you take into account about possible other verses to explain and give context to what it is actually referring to?

 

[pablope]

Now you are interpreting and forcing the meaning. Where does it state in the Bible that it is to be taken as you say it is?

And are you making an infallible or fallible statement?

Lord of heaven and earth, fill pablope with the continuous joy that only comes through your presence. Amen!

Thanks…i am very much filled when I receive body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. You should pray for guidance that you will too…you just need to interpret the Real presence as you do other verses.

 

[bbbeatt]

You have asked questions and said what the passage doesn’t mean.

What does the passage mean? How is the passage to be applied?

 

[pablope]

pablope;10512098:

You have asked questions and said what the passage doesn’t mean.

The passage is to be read and understood within the context of the whole epistle, otherwise, you will miss parts.

Catholics do not take a verse singly and force a meaning to prove a doctrine.

If you want to see the context, go to post 18 and the following posts, which is explained exhaustively:

Here is post 18:

1. Is the “what is written” the Corinthians are instructed not to go beyond, talking about “the Bible ” as a whole. Is THAT the context? Or . . .
2. Is the “what is written” that the Corinthians are instructed to not go beyond, talking about: Specific Scriptural writings that warn them that earthly human wisdom on it’s own cannot adequately probe the teachings God that you need to be instructed with.
   When this is read in context you will find out that the “what is written” alludes to specific instructions about not venturing into private interpretation with self-appointed teachers. Far from teaching sola scriptura, this 1st Corinthians 4:6 refutes it and basically warns against private interpretation!

Why? Because human wisdom is always inadequate to obtain the full message of God, and sometimes (as in this case with the Corinthians) even traverses and transgresses what God wants His people taught.

If the message changes, the teacher of the message is to be discounted. As we will see later, St. Paul EVEN applies this principle to himself!

When we see the following . . .

1st CORINTHIANS 4:6b . . . that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written…
. . . we must look at the whole verse here AND the broader context as well. The context of the “what is written” concerns a “wisdom of this world” that always falls short. That’s all.

Just 11 verses before 1st Corinthians 4:6, St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 3:18-20 talks about how worldly wisdom is inadequate and that is the “what is written” St. Paul is alluding to here in context , not the Bible!

1st CORINTHIANS 3:18-20a 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.
Incidentally, private interpretation of course is an example of this type of “wisdom of this world” thinking.

Nobody should be teaching you a different Gospel than I ALREADY TAUGHT you!

Let’s go deeper. . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

The context of “what is written” was NOT “the Bible” bbbeatt.

This illustrates the problem of everyone being his or her own “pope”.

The self-made pope motif is exactly the type of thing St. Paul is condemning.

The Corinthians were being castigated for not following what was already (ORALLY) taught to them. That’s the whole point of St. Paul citing the “what is written” aspect in 1st Corinthians 4:6.

What is the “what is written” aspect that St. Paul referring to here? Is it the Bible? No!

What is it then if not the Bible?

Fortunately St. Paul told us just a few verses earlier in 1st Corinthians 3:19.

It’s citing other verses that give warning not to transgress God-appointed authority in spiritual matters that have already been taught. That’s what St. Paul is talking about concerning “what is written” (what I just had written to you a few sentences ago).

St. Paul later even applies this teaching to himself.

If what you think about sola Scriptura is true, then you’d expect there to be a BIBLICAL list of books, letters, etc. that belong in the Bible.

But there isn’t.

These documents within Sacred Scripture were compiled and prayed over and recognized as authentic by Catholic Bishops with God-given authority (which is part of Oral Tradition).

You won’t find a Bible verse that states: “In the Bible should belong the following documents, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus. . . . etc. etc. . . . Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, . . . etc. . . . Jude and Revelation.”

WHERE is this verse bbbeatt? If your interpretation of 1st Corinthians 4:6 is correct, than you ought to be able to readily find this verse.

How do you know which books belong in the Bible with your interpretation of 1st Corinthians 4:6? An interpretation that ignores the “what is written” aspect of 1st Corinthians 3:19.

 

[bbbeatt]

bbbeatt;10512721:

pablope;10512098:

The passage is to be read and understood within the context of the whole epistle, otherwise, you will miss parts.

Catholics do not take a verse singly and force a meaning to prove a doctrine.

If you want to see the context, go to post 18 and the following posts, which is explained exhaustively:

Here is post 18:

1. Is the “what is written” the Corinthians are instructed not to go beyond, talking about “the Bible ” as a whole. Is THAT the context? Or . . .
2. Is the “what is written” that the Corinthians are instructed to not go beyond, talking about: Specific Scriptural writings that warn them that earthly human wisdom on it’s own cannot adequately probe the teachings God that you need to be instructed with.
   When this is read in context you will find out that the “what is written” alludes to specific instructions about not venturing into private interpretation with self-appointed teachers. Far from teaching sola scriptura, this 1st Corinthians 4:6 refutes it and basically warns against private interpretation!

Why? Because human wisdom is always inadequate to obtain the full message of God, and sometimes (as in this case with the Corinthians) even traverses and transgresses what God wants His people taught.

If the message changes, the teacher of the message is to be discounted. As we will see later, St. Paul EVEN applies this principle to himself!

When we see the following . . .

1st CORINTHIANS 4:6b . . . that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written…
. . . we must look at the whole verse here AND the broader context as well. The context of the “what is written” concerns a “wisdom of this world” that always falls short. That’s all.

Just 11 verses before 1st Corinthians 4:6, St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 3:18-20 talks about how worldly wisdom is inadequate and that is the “what is written” St. Paul is alluding to here in context , not the Bible!

1st CORINTHIANS 3:18-20a 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.
Incidentally, private interpretation of course is an example of this type of “wisdom of this world” thinking.

Nobody should be teaching you a different Gospel than I ALREADY TAUGHT you!

Let’s go deeper. . . .

So, are you saying that “do not go beyond what is written” means “Nobody should be teaching you a different Gospel than I ALREADY TAUGHT you!”

 

[pablope]

pablope;10512783:

bbbeatt;10512721:

So, are you saying that “do not go beyond what is written” means “Nobody should be teaching you a different Gospel than I ALREADY TAUGHT you!”

First…keep in mind, the original writings did not have chapters and verses…there were one very loooonnggg…paragraph…if you will. Chapters and verses were added only around the 1200 or so.

Yes…do not go beyond what is written" means "Nobody should be teaching you a different Gospel than I ALREADY TAUGHT you…and more…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.”

As I said…you should consider this passage in light of the whole epistle, not take an isolated verse and build a doctrine around it.

Let me give you another example. As a protestant tradition, protestants like to cite this passage to prove to them their belief in Sola Scriptura:

2tim3…v16…16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

But neglect the prior verse.

If you add v 14…14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

V14 speaks of the oral instruction…that Timothry received. Taken as a whole, the entire passage takes a whole new meaning.

 

[Regina_Love]

Faith and works are inseparable. James explained in 2:17 that faith without works is dead (ineffective). Ephesians 2:8 expressly states that works can not save “not by works”. You quoted a passage about justification.

If I was incorrect is stating that we are saved by “faith alone”… meaning true faith resulting in good works, then what are you saying must be added to true faith to receive salvation?

God Bless

Faith with out works is dead! as in dead. It is not faith at all, or it would have works associated with it. It is grace, faith, & works which save.

In **Ephesians 2:8 ** You miss understand the object of the sentence. if you were to diagram it, then you would know what it is saying. GRACE IS THE OBJECT OF THE SENTENCE. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this (grace) is not of you; it (grace) is the gift of God; it (grace) is not from works, so no one may boast.

We are saved by obeying the 10 commandments! That’s deffinitely work! ha Mathew 19:16…“Teacher what must I do to gain eternal life?..If you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments.”

"Do for the least of these… Mathew 25:41-46 We must care for those in need to be saved.

We must avoid serious sin, “I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Gal 5:19-21

We must repent, and be baptized to be saved. Peter {said} to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

We must confess our sins, Jesus said to them…“As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” John 20:21-23 For nothing unclean will enter Heaven.

We must persevere to be saved, “…but whoever endures to the end will be saved.” Mathew 10:22

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” Are you saved if you do not have life within you? No. We must receive the Eucharist to be saved. John 6:53

There are more also. We are definitely Not saved by faith alone. It is miracle enough that we can be saved at all. What a good and glorious God we have!