Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 prove sola scripture?

[ViaCrucis]

Sola Scriptura isn't about "Bible onlyism", it's about confessing Scripture as the chief guide and rule over Christian faith; so for example if Scripture says one thing, and I say another, Scripture wins. Scripture is not the only thing which guides our faith, but it is the rule that rules over all other rules.

The Creeds, for example, inform and guide our faith; but if there were a conflict between Creed and Scripture, Scripture would win; but such a conflict does not exist. And the Creeds are faithful and true even in and of themselves as true expressions of true Christian faith to be heard, received, and confessed.

Scripture is always the chief rule, that which guides and rules over all other rules. That doesn't mean Scripture exists in a vacuum, or apart from the living witness and confession of faith that exists within the community of faith itself; but it does mean that we can reliably return to the Scriptures when or if we start to stray.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

But we do walk with the Lord, and he does teach us new things.

Such as what? Look at all the denominations who teach differently, what has that gotten them?. It's my opinion that the more we know, the more simplistic we become, not being weighed down with excessive and opposing theology, or tradition.

 

[dreadnought]

Sola Scriptura isn't about "Bible onlyism", it's about confessing Scripture as the chief guide and rule over Christian faith; so for example if Scripture says one thing, and I say another, Scripture wins. Scripture is not the only thing which guides our faith, but it is the rule that rules over all other rules.

The Creeds, for example, inform and guide our faith; but if there were a conflict between Creed and Scripture, Scripture would win; but such a conflict does not exist. And the Creeds are faithful and true even in and of themselves as true expressions of true Christian faith to be heard, received, and confessed.

Scripture is always the chief rule, that which guides and rules over all other rules. That doesn't mean Scripture exists in a vacuum, or apart from the living witness and confession of faith that exists within the community of faith itself; but it does mean that we can reliably return to the Scriptures when or if we start to stray.

-CryptoLutheran

I think the greatest value in the Bible is where it directly quotes God and Jesus.

 

[dreadnought]

Such as what? Look at all the denominations who teach differently, what has that gotten them?. It's my opinion that the more we know, the more simplistic we become, not being weighed down with excessive and opposing theology, or tradition.

Well, there is truth and there is nonsense. No need to learn the nonsense.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jesus taught us the great and first commandment is to love the Lord with all our hearts, minds, and souls (Matt 22:34-40), and Paul told us to pray constantly (1 Thess 5:17). The object is to develop a personal relationship with the Lord, and when we do, we continue to learn. Read this:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25 RSV

I’m sorry but I really don’t think that in any way supports the idea that people today will successfully prophesize. It only means that everything Jesus did and taught that we’re not recorded in the scriptures.

 

[Yarddog]

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Simply put, NO. Very little of the new testament had been written when Paul wrote this. He was most likely taking about the epistle he was writing.
He later writes in 2 Thessalonians, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. This shows that Sola scripture didn't exist.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Good observation, but not proof.

The answer my brother in Christ is not. Nothing in the Bible can prove Sola Scriptura and if it did if it did it would fail as a test anyway because it would be self authenticating.

[Staff edit]. We all know Scripture is true, unquestionably true.

What is lacking is proof of any other authoritative source of God's word that can always be held as unquestionably true.

As NONE have proven this, by default we are left with ONLY Scripture as
unquestionably true.

Sola Scriptura.

 

[Philip_B]

We all know Scripture is true, unquestionably true.

What is lacking is proof of any other authoritative source of God's word that can always be held as unquestionably true.

As NONE have proven this, by default we are left with ONLY Scripture as unquestionably true.

Sola Scriptura.

[Staff edit]

The point I was making, and I believe quite validly is that just as self praise is no recommendation, so self authentication actually proves nothing. The Bible is not true because the Bible says it is true. My experience as a Christian has led me to value the witness of scripture because I find it to be true and helps me understand my own experiences in life and faith. Ultimately my position in relation the scripture requires a step of faith, which is not counter reason, but going the step beyond where reason can get me on its own.

[Staff edit].

God is not the prisoner of an organisation, a tabernacle, or a book, and whilst God may be revealed in those things if you think God can be constrained in that way then I would recommend the book by JB Phillips Your God is too Small.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The passage appears to opposes Gnosticism, i.e. the claims of "secret revelation" to one person, who thereby claims a "puffed up authority" over others. "Nothing beyond what is written" sounds like a legal term -- the Apostle Paul was a lawyer, and I offer that he was borrowing a legal phrase from 1st century AD "Contract Law".

"Don't read between the lines", "don't read into things". Only what they had directly (and publicly) received, in word or print (2 Thess 2:15) from the Apostles. "No [further] wriggle room". No secret personal private "Gnostic" revelations.

 

[Afra]

Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine created by the RCC to defend itself against the Reformation theologies.
How about Scriptura Suprema?

That is not taught in Sacred Scripture either.

It's my opinion that the more we know, the more simplistic we become, not being weighed down with excessive and opposing theology, or tradition.

Do you have any evidence in support of this opinion?

We all know Scripture is true, unquestionably true.

From my perspective, you do not know that Sacred Scripture is true. You reject at least 7 books that we consider to be the inspired word of God, so there is no reason for us to accept your foundational assumption. You must prove why you accept certain books and reject others. Your problem is that you cannot do so without violating Sola Scriptura.

 

[W2L]

Thanks for the replies folks.

 

[W2L]

That is not taught in Sacred Scripture either.

Do you have any evidence in support of this opinion?

From my perspective, you do not know that Sacred Scripture is true. You reject at least 7 books that we consider to be the inspired word of God, so there is no reason for us to accept your foundational assumption. You must prove why you accept certain books and reject others. Your problem is that you cannot do so without violating Sola Scriptura.

I have never read those books, so i cant reject or accept them. However, i do reject catholicism so i probably wont ever read those books you mention. As far as proving my opinion goes, love fulfills the law and its just that simple.

 

[gordonhooker]

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

No

 

[Afra]

I have never read those books, so i cant reject or accept them. However, i do reject catholicism so i probably wont ever read those books you mention. As far as proving my opinion goes, love fulfills the law and its just that simple.

Love does fulfill the law, but this does not prove what you wrote.

As for the books, the question is not whether you accept or reject Catholicism. The question is whether the books are the inspired word of God. If you love God, then you will want to read his word.

 

[W2L]

Love does fulfill the law, but this does not prove what you wrote.

As for the books, the question is not whether you accept or reject Catholicism. The question is whether the books are the inspired word of God. If you love God, then you will want to read his word.

I already have His word. Its not how many books we have, because the bible, especially the NT, reiterates the same message over and over again. Its about being a doer of the word, not the study and arguing over more books.

 

[W2L]

Ecclesiastes 12:12 But beyond this, my son, be warned: the [a]writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.

13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

 

[Afra]

I already have His word. Its not how many books we have, because the bible, especially the NT, reiterates the same message over and over again. Its about being a doer of the word, not the study and arguing over more books.

Well by that logic a Christian may consider only Third John and ignore the other 72 books of Sacred Scripture. One may subjectively choose any set of books that he deems sufficient for him to be a doer of the word and ignore the rest.

ALL of God’s word is important.

 

[W2L]

Well by that logic a Christian may consider only Third John and ignore the other 72 books of Sacred Scripture. One may subjectively choose any set of books that he deems sufficient for him to be a doer of the word and ignore the rest.

ALL of God’s word is important.

As i said, the NT reiterates the same message over and over agains, so there is no missing out of the truth. Why do you want to argue over whos bible is bigger?

 

[Mark_Sam]

I have never read those books, so i cant reject or accept them.

Just so there is no confusion, these 7 books, called the Deuterocanonical books are:
Tobit
Judith
Baruch, with the Letter of Jeremiah
The Book of Wisdom
Sirach, also called Ben Sira and Ecclesiasticus
1st Maccabees
2nd Maccabees

Also, there are some additions to the other Biblical books:
The Greek Esther, which has multiple additions compared to the Hebrew Esther
The three additions to Daniel, being:
The Song of the Three Holy Children (inserted into ch. 3)
Susanna and the Elders (inserted before ch. 1)
Bel and the Dragon (inserted after ch. 12)

Other books, such as Enoch, the Book of Jubiliees, Assumption of Moses etc. has no place in the Catholic and Orthodox canon of Scripture. I think everyone should read Sirach and Wisdom - whether or not they believe it to be Scripture - because they are, well, full of wisdom.

 

[Afra]

As i said, the NT reiterates the same message over and over agains, so there is no missing out of the truth. Why do you want to argue over whos bible is bigger?

No, each book of Sacred Scripture offers something unique.

I have no particular desire to debate the canon here. The only point I wanted to raise was that there is no reason for me to accept the foundational assumption that everyone knows that the Bible is true. From my perspective, the person who wrote that does not know that the Bible is true.