OLAADEGBU:


Check it out here:

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye [font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another" (1 Corinthians 4:6).

https://www.nairaland.com/4042886/what-five-solas

Log In
1Corinthians 4:6
Apologetics Sacred Scripture

"For reasons which will soon become obvious, proponents of sola scriptura don't often turn to 1 Corinthians 4:6. But since it does come up from time to time, Catholics should know how to refute the misuse of this verse.

There are several of ways to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 4:6 can't rescue sola scriptura from the realm of myth. First, note that none of the Reformers attempted to use this verse to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul's use of the phrase "what is written" is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4:6). Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism.

Some commentators see in 1 Corinthians 4:6 an allusion to "what is written" in the Book of Life (Ex. 32:32-33, Rev. 20:12). This is quite possibly what Paul had in mind, since the context of 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 is divine judgment (when the Book of Life will be opened and scrutinized). He admonishes the Corinthians against speculating about how people will be judged, leaving it up to "what has been written" in the Book of Life. Although that interpretation of the text is a possibility, being consistent with the rest of Scripture, it is by no means certain.

What is certain is that Paul, in saying, "do not go beyond what is written," was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

The difficulties with these options are immediately clear. No Protestant would agree with option one, that the Old Testament is a sufficient authority in matters of doctrine. Nor would he accept option two, for this would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline. Hence, John's Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation would all have to be jettisoned as non-authoritative.

Option three fails because in order for sola scriptura to be a "biblical" doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one Bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition. But there are no such verses; and as we'll see, 1 Corinthians 4:6 is no exception.

Option four is likewise untenable because it contradicts Paul's express command in to "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura
The same is true in the case of the Ephesians to whom Paul said, "I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God" (Acts 20:27). This statement undercuts sola scriptura. Paul remained in Ephesus for over two years teaching the faith so diligently that "all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord" (Acts 19:10), yet his epistle to the Ephesians is a scant four or five pages and could not even begin to touch upon all the doctrines he taught them orally

OLAADEGBU:


Check it out here:

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

https://www.nairaland.com/4042886/what-five-solas

I would respond to these so called ‘Proofs’ of sola scriptura in the Bible as absured to say the least. For the simple fact that he wasn’t refering to any Gospel. If he even was refering to the Bible it wasn’t the Gospels, probably not even the epistles (the epistles didn’t have the status of scripture at the time), simply because Paul’s epistles were written before any Gospel , hence the fact he never refers to the Gospel as scripture, just ‘preaching’. If a protestant wants to interpret this to mean ‘sola scriptura’ then tell him/her to run to the nearest synagogue. All jokes aside though, sola scriptura is not what this verse teaches, simply because it logically and historically couldn’t, the apostles didn’t practice sola scriptura.

Peace

OLAADEGBU:


Check it out here:

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

https://www.nairaland.com/4042886/what-five-solas

Moreover, the idea that everything an apostle taught orally was eventually reduced to writing is itself an extra-biblical idea. And what of the apostles who never wrote any Scripture? Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. What about Jesus himself who left behind no writing – nor any command to write? Matthew 28:20 says that the apostles were to “observe all I have commanded,” but we are told that not all Jesus did and said is in Scripture (Jn. 20:30 and 21:25)! And what of apostolic teachings that seem to have never been written down? The apostle John said, “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 Jn. 13). Paul said likewise in 1 Thess. 3:10. Paul “proclaimed the entire plan of God” in Ephesus for over at least two years (Acts 20:27), yet his letter to them is only 5 short chapters. What else might he have taught them? In 1 Corinthians itself (11:34) Paul says he has more to teach them but he would do it when he arrived – but we are never told what “these other things” were (and have another lost letter in between 1 and 2 Corinthians that probably contained such material if any of his letters did – 2 Cor. 2:4 cf. 7:.

Further, the apostles themselves taught from sources outside the Bible. In Acts 17:28, Paul quotes the writings of a pagan poet. In Acts 7:53 Stephen cites an oral tradition that angels gave Moses the Law – one which Paul also taught in Galatians 3:19. Jude 9 and 14-15 both contain material concerning the archangel Michael and Enoch which is taken from extra-biblical sources. In Ephesians 5:14 Paul seems to quote some authoritative source as saying, “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” – but this is found nowhere else in the Bible. Matthew goes beyond “what is written” in the Old Testament when he lists prophetic evidence of Jesus (2:23). Jesus Himself quotes a pagan playwright when he blinded Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14).

Finally, the Early Church had to go well beyond “what is written” when they developed orthodox doctrines (often using pagan philosophical terms to explicate their theology), and of course they went completely beyond “what is written” when they determined Canon of Scripture itself

9inches:


(2 Thessalonians 2:15) "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours". Paul must have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition. What do you think?

Also, (3 John 13-14) " I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face." Why would John emphasize his preference for oral tradition over written tradition in this instance if, as you assert, the scripture is superior to oral tradition?

In the very first letter of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:2), "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you." What does he mean by that, if earlier on in the same letter (1 Corinthians 4:6), advocates sola scriptura?

What oral tradition did the apostles teach apart from what was taught in the word of God?

OLAADEGBU:


What oral tradition did the apostles teach apart from what was taught in the word of God?

I can't fully grasp what the bolded part means. Please rephrase or explain.

OLAADEGBU:


What oral tradition did the apostles teach apart from what was taught in the written word of God?

Is this what you meant?

9inches:


Is this what you meant?

Let's not forget what this thread is about. See what the Bible says about it here/ ==> https://www.gotquestions.org/Mariolatry.html

OLAADEGBU:


Let's not forget what this thread is about. See what the Bible says about it here/ ==> https://www.gotquestions.org/Mariolatry.html

We are trying to find out how biblical your doctrine of sola scriptura is.

9inches:


We are trying to find out how biblical your doctrine of sola scriptura is.

But I directed you to the thread that dealt with that subject, why did you avoid it?

OLAADEGBU:


But I directed you to the thread that dealt with that subject, why did you avoid it?

I read that and replied you. There is nothing there that says sola scriptura is biblical; quote it here if you think I missed it. Thanks.