Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 prove sola scripture?

[dqhall]

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.

Paul continued to write; going beyond what had been written. Many things have been written since Paul. Some of these writings are good and some of these writings are bad. One should seek God in prayer as not everything has been written.

 

[GingerBeer]

Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 prove sola scripture?

No. In Paul's letter the verse does not say a ting about "sola scriptura". Context counts. It reveals the truth and exposes lies.

1Corinthians 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If anyone of you considers himself wise in the ways of the world, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s eyes. To this, Scripture says: God catches the wise in their own wisdom. 20 It also says: The Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that it is useless.

21 Because of this, let no one boast about human beings, for everything belongs to you; 22 Paul, Apollos, Cephas—life, death, the present and the future. Everything is yours, 23 and you, you belong to Christ, and Christ is of God.

4:1 Let everyone, then, see us as the servants of Christ, and stewards of the secret works of God. 2 Being stewards, faithfulness shall be demanded of us; 3 but I do not mind if you, or any human court, judges me. I do not even judge myself; 4 my conscience, indeed, does not accuse me of anything, but that is not enough for me to be set right with God: the Lord is the one who judges me.

5 Therefore, do not judge before the time, until the coming of the Lord. He will bring to light whatever was hidden in darkness, and will disclose the secret intentions of the hearts. Then, each one will receive praise from God.

6 Brothers and sisters, you forced me to apply these comparisons to Apollos and to myself. Learn by this example, not to believe yourselves superior by siding with one against the other. 7 How, then, are you more than the others? What have you that you have not received? And if you received it, why are you proud, as if you did not receive it?​

​

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

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

Thanks for posting the list. I didn't realize that I have actually read all of the books that are in dispute in this thread.

Of those books, I would have to say that the first book of the Maccabees was the only very well-written and useful one. It actually does quite a lot to help bridge the time gap between the two Testaments. It also appears to be historically correct. I regret that more people do not read it.

Judith, on the other hand, is a work of fiction. In fact, I get the impression that it was meant to be taken as fiction. As a fictitious work it was poorly researched (not historically accurate) and not very interesting.

All of the others are just kind of mediocre.

None of the books appears to have any relevance to the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

I would also argue that Sola Scriptura is a philosophy of reduction, and not addition, which means that even if one could prove that the excluded books were valid scripture, such an argument would not disprove Sola Scriptura, as one poster, here, seems to think. It would be a far more valid argument to prove that the smaller Bible contains bad books and false scripture, but neither side is in favor of that position, so the argument is dead.

 

[dreadnought]

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.

I'm not suggesting anyone prophecy. I'm explaining that we need to develop personal relationships with the Lord. How can you not learn new things when you are walking with the Lord?

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

Clearly not. Since paul tells you " hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter" which is reflective of the fact that doctrine was not handed by scripture in the early church. The canon (NT) was centuries away, and few could own it and read it, the faith was passed by " handing down" paradosis, translated as tradition,

Indeed sola scriptura is easily disprovable, with simple logic, history and even scripture itself, each in several ways, not just one. It is false. Get over it.

Which I have done repeatedly , yet still the same people ignore it, without comment , posting the same falasies yet again.

You see the symptoms of the falasy every day- yet fail to see it for what it is: the words of scripture are not enough to have the word of God, which is why you all disagree on what it means, and your doctrines are irreconcilable
- poles apart from each other, and it is why Protestantism fragments. Even Luther could see this why can't you?

You need the correct meaning of scripture to have the word of God, and that is Carried by tradition and authority, which is how the faith was passed down. Tradition does not mean " other non scriptural stuff" , which is a misunderstanding of the meaning of " paradosis" . Tradition is all of doctrine handed down by apostolic succession, confirmed in scripture But only if you use correct meaning.


Protestant are faced with a painful dilemma.

Reject the authority of church (apostolic succession) and council ( the power to bind and loose) and you no longer have a creed or canon you call the NT.
So you cannot base faith on the NT because you can no longer know it is scripture or that the creed has truth.

Accept the authority of the church and council, that chose the canon, and you must take their meaning for scripture with it. The succession still has authority If you take any other meaning because you no longer have the word of God.

As scripture itself says " the foundation of truth is the church" reflecting the Jesus appointed authority of his church. Which is physical not just a spiritual association. " the household of God" . That's why we are told to "take disputes to the church"
If it had meant scripture, it would have said so

 

[Ron Gurley]

RCC Catholics seem to like their complaints about the doctrines of the 5 "Sola's...."Sola Scriptura"?

1. Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")...excludes "church" Sacred Tradition and Interpretation ( Papal Magisterium) as elements to define doctrine...it ruins their 3 legged stool!

2. Sola fide ("by faith alone")...excludes human "good works" as somehow necessary for salvation

3. Sola gratia ("by grace alone")...excludes the merit done by a person to achieve salvation...Grace is unconditional Love and Mercy...unearned...unmerited

4. Solus Christus / Solo Christo ("Christ alone" / "THROUGH Christ alone")...excludes the priestly class as necessary for giving of sacraments, ...Jesus is the ONLY "Way"

5. Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")...excludes veneration or cult given to the Virgin Mary, the saints, or angels.

extracts:
Five solae - Wikipedia

 

[W2L]

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.

Im not sure i understand what you're saying. Could you please reword it?

 

[W2L]

Indeed sola scriptura is easily disprovable, with simple logic, history and even scripture itself, each in several ways, not just one. It is false. Get over it.

Get over what exactly? I just asked a question. I believe Catholicism is false.

 

[W2L]

not everything has been written.

Everything i need to know is written. What else is there? Love God and neighbor, this fulfills the law. Walk in the spirit, love Joy peace within. I am complete in Christ. I know right from wrong, i am blessed. Amen.

 

[Ron Gurley]

I and billions:

Reject the RCC's theory of "apostolic succession" and its alleged spiritual "power to bind and loose"

AND ALSO

Accept the history of canonization.

God the Holy Spirit guided Man to "produce" and approve the final 66 books of the Bible, excluding all other writings and theology.

A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture.

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

 

[W2L]

Clearly not. Since paul tells you " hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter" which is reflective of the fact that doctrine was not handed by scripture in the early church. The canon (NT) was centuries away, and few could own it and read it, the faith was passed by " handing down" paradosis, translated as tradition,

Indeed sola scriptura is easily disprovable, with simple logic, history and even scripture itself, each in several ways, not just one. It is false. Get over it.

Which I have done repeatedly , yet still the same people ignore it, without comment , posting the same falasies yet again.

You see the symptoms of the falasy every day- yet fail to see it for what it is: the words of scripture are not enough to have the word of God, which is why you all disagree on what it means, and your doctrines are irreconcilable
- poles apart from each other, and it is why Protestantism fragments. Even Luther could see this why can't you?

You need the correct meaning of scripture to have the word of God, and that is Carried by tradition and authority, which is how the faith was passed down. Tradition does not mean " other non scriptural stuff" , which is a misunderstanding of the meaning of " paradosis" . Tradition is all of doctrine handed down by apostolic succession, confirmed in scripture But only if you use correct meaning.


Protestant are faced with a painful dilemma.

Reject the authority of church (apostolic succession) and council ( the power to bind and loose) and you no longer have a creed or canon you call the NT.
So you cannot base faith on the NT because you can no longer know it is scripture or that the creed has truth.

Accept the authority of the church and council, that chose the canon, and you must take their meaning for scripture with it. The succession still has authority If you take any other meaning because you no longer have the word of God.

As scripture itself says " the foundation of truth is the church" reflecting the Jesus appointed authority of his church. Which is physical not just a spiritual association. " the household of God" . That's why we are told to "take disputes to the church"
If it had meant scripture, it would have said so

Nope. Catholicism isnt the authority. The Word is the authority, being both scripture and Spirit teacher.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Thanks for posting the list. I didn't realize that I have actually read all of the books that are in dispute in this thread.

Of those books, I would have to say that the first book of the Maccabees was the only very well-written and useful one. It actually does quite a lot to help bridge the time gap between the two Testaments. It also appears to be historically correct. I regret that more people do not read it.

Agree, it is a very good historical source.

Judith, on the other hand, is a work of fiction. In fact, I get the impression that it was meant to be taken as fiction. As a fictitious work it was poorly researched (not historically accurate) and not very interesting.

I agree to the fictional part. Calling Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians in the book's opening verse (Judith 1:1) would have caught the audience's attention right away as very inaccurate. That would be like saying, "When Hitler was head of the Soviet Union". So it is best understood as a historical fiction. As for its literary merits, I don't know.

None of the books appears to have any relevance to the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

2 Maccabees says: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Macc 12:46, DR), and also that Judas Maccabee "sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead" (2 Macc 12:43). Both these are practices the RCC continue to practise to this day (prayer for the dead, Mass for the dead). And Tobit is also the source of the name of the third archangel, Raphael. But other than that, I don't think there are doctrinal matters in these books that are relevant for the Catholic-Protestant-dialogue, other than the status of the books themselves.

Ok, that might have been a little off-topic ...

 

[Afra]

Im not sure i understand what you're saying. Could you please reword it?

Don't feel like it. Sorry.

 

[W2L]

Don't feel like it. Sorry.

Ok.

 

[jamesbond007]

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.

If it was, then you'd be famous .

 

[W2L]

If it was, then you'd be famous .

What do you mean?

 

[Afra]

Nope. Catholicism isnt the authority. The Word is the authority, being both scripture and Spirit teacher.

Well, to be correct, your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture is your only authority. You are truly bound only by your own personal interpretation. If you personally interpret
Sacred Scripture such that masturation or pre-marital sex are allowed, as some Christians do, for example, there is really nothing that prohibits you from engaging in those activities. You are ultimately the judge of what Scripture allows and prohibits, when it comes down to it.

 

[W2L]

Well, to be correct, your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture is your only authority. You are truly bound only by your own personal interpretation. If you personally interpret
Sacred Scripture such that masturation or pre-marital sex are allowed, as some Christians do, for example, there is really nothing that prohibits you from engaging in those activities. You are ultimately the judge of what Scripture allows and prohibits, when it comes down to it.

I do make judgments, but the Lord is the teacher who leads and disciplines me. He is the authority. I put all my faith in the Lord, not teachers.

 

[Afra]

I do make judgments, but the Lord is the teacher who leads and disciplines me. He is the authority. I put all my faith in the Lord, not teachers.

Good. Now if the Lord teaches you, does that mean that Sacred Scripture is your only authority? Or is the Lord himself and what he privately reveals to you also your authority?

 

[W2L]

Good. Now if the Lord teaches you, does that mean that Sacred Scripture is your only authority? Or is the Lord himself and what he privately reveals to you also your authority?

Of course the Lord is the authority, thats why His word is the authority. Why would i call Him lord and not do what He says?