Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 prove sola scripture?

[BobRyan]

Why do you know that scripture is unquestionably true? Who gave you the books which most call scripture today?

The Bible writers and copyists.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Why do you know that scripture is unquestionably true? Who gave you the books which most call scripture today?
If you doubt those that came together to choose the writings which make up most Christian Bibles, then why do you trust those writings?

Did Jesus question the traditions of the Pharisees? Did Jesus not say they were man's traditions?

Somehow you think those that tabulate, bind and preserve for a time the books of scripture are to be some greater authority and guaranteed to always remain in complete truth. Learn from Jesus words to those of Jesus' time that did what you think is important.

Writings which the early Church, using oral and written tradition, said were worthy of being called scripture

Since Sola Scriptura isn't taught in scripture then it is contradictory to claim the doctrine. Scripture says that we are to use the teachings handed down by the Apostles, whether written or spoken, so to reject the oral traditions of the Apostles is the same as rejecting the written.

We are well past the time where the oral has not been recorded.

I have asked this numerous times and yet to get an answer.

What doctrine exists that is necessary for salvation,
that is not recorded in scripture?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The problem is that this is circular logic, akin to saying "Scripture is true because Scripture is true". Don't get me wrong, of course I agree with you that the Scriptures are true and the word of God. But frankly, a Muslim could use the excact same argument for the Qur'an: "The Qur'an is true because it is from God, and we know it is from God because it is true."

We should be able to bring more rigid arguments to the table when the world asks us why we should believe the Bible instead of the Qur'an or the Vedas or whatever. That's the point being made.

You are really missing my point and it is very simple. It is one sentence.

Scripture is true, wholly and unquestionably true.

This forum is for Christians. Christians believe Scripture is true. My post is not for those that believe other religions. Certainly I would not state to them that the Bible is true because I say it is. But what you interject into my argument is just a red herring. My posts are not meant to prove scripture is true. I only point out that Christians accept scripture to be unquestionably true God's word. This can not be said for anything else.

The Bereans can actually be used as an argument against Sola Scriptura. They studied the Scriptures, and when they understood that Paul was preaching the truth, they accepted the unwritten apostolic traditions Paul brought - the preaching of the apostles, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and so on (cf. v.12 "Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men."). Now, I might be exaggerating, but there is still something to this point.

There were multiple things that testified to the truth that what the apostles said was special, so special that their letters were read in church, passed around to other churches and preserved. Even Jesus spoke of things that testified to his authority. Show me any other doing what Jesus and the apostles did and I will grant you the authority of a prophet. Regardless, scripture is closed with John's book of Revelation and everything we need to know for salvation is sufficiently contained in the Bible.

The Bereans followed a timeless rule. Test all teachings against scripture. Are you really going to say that the rule stated in scripture should not be followed?

 

[W2L]

John 6:45 New King James Version (NKJV)
45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

 

[Yarddog]

The Bible writers and copyists.

The Bible writers handed the writings and the Oral Tradition which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those they trained to feed the sheep when they had passed. They didn't hand anyone Sola Scripura.

 

[gordonhooker]

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?

So does the 80 books of sacred Scripture.

 

[Yarddog]

Did Jesus question the traditions of the Pharisees? Did Jesus not say they were man's traditions?

And? Just what does the tradition of the Pharisees have to do with the Christian Bible? Oh yeah, they decided to devise their own canon of the Jewish writings which removed several of the books which the Apostles handed to the Church, the Septuagint, and whom many Protestants embraced their traditions and followed suit and removed those books from their Bibles around 400 years ago.

Somehow you think those that tabulate, bind and preserve for a time the books of scripture are to be some greater authority and guaranteed to always remain in complete truth. Learn from Jesus words to those of Jesus' time that did what you think is important.

Yes, I would much rather trust the Oral Traditions handed down by the Apostles than those of the Pharisees.

What doctrine exists that is necessary for salvation,
that is not recorded in scripture?

Well, just what is believing in Christ? Do you follow all of the teachings handed down by the Apostles about how to follow Christ?

 

[jamesbond007]

No - you have to find "scripture" in the Bible to support the teaching of "sola scriptura"

1 Cor 4:9
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.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"

First, what you stated is different from the title of this thread. Second, let's keep things in context. Both Acts and Corinthians that you quote are the journeys of apostle Paul. If the catholic church built its church upon the teachings of Peter as they claim, then we should be able to find the journeys of apostle Peter to back up their claim. AFAIK, there is no record of Peter's travels to Rome in the Bible.

Finding "scripture" to support sola scriptura seems fruitless because one can take the context out and "find" the earth is flat. If sola scriptura is so important, then it would be stated. The other warning that one must take to heart is one can't just argue the truth. The demon Satan is too clever and too powerful. The Bible gives him the title of god of the Earth and prince of the air. He'll twist the truth and convince people of his lie. What is the purpose of demonstrating sola scriptura? Is it to deepen your faith? Or to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? In the process, you destroy the brotherhood and sisterhood?

 

[BobRyan]

You would have found the words in the Bible to prove sola scriptura.

No - you have to find "scripture" in the Bible to support the teaching of "sola scriptura"

1 Cor 4:9
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.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"

Good luck with that.

Thanks!

One can't argue truth vs the devil. He's too powerful as he can twist truth into lies. Now, I'm not saying one side is the devil, but if one let's the truth be obscured whatever their denomination, then they would have lost.

True. "Sanctify them in Thy TRUTH -- Thy WORD is Truth" John 17:17

2 Peter 1:20-21 " 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Notice how Jesus uses the term "Word of God" in this example?


Mark 7:6-13
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

First, what you stated is different from the title of this thread.

The title focused on 1 Cor 4:9 instructing Christians not to "go beyond what is written" - which is like saying "stay inside the boundary set by your rule book". And all the examples above conform to that as far as I can tell.

Second, let's keep things in context. Both Acts and Corinthians that you quote are the journeys of apostle Paul.

1 Corinthians is not about a journey to Corinth. It is a letter to Corinth.
Acts 17 is part of a historic record of a missionary journey taken by Paul

If the catholic church built its church upon the teachings of Peter as they claim, then we should be able to find the journeys of apostle Peter to back up their claim.

Not much in Acts about Peter's journeys.
If the Catholic Church is built on the teachings of just Peter and not also Paul - they need to tell someone. (BTW - most what Paul does as told in Acts is written by Luke )

AFAIK, there is no record of Peter's travels to Rome in the Bible.

True. But in 1 Peter 5:13 he says this "13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark."

Some have supposed that in Revelation and in 1 Peter 5 the term "Babylon" is used as a symbol for Rome.

Finding "scripture" to support sola scriptura seems fruitless because one can take the context out and "find" the earth is flat.

That is like saying "Finding out what the Gospel is or that Jesus was the Son of God is fruitless because one can take the context out and "find" the earth is flat"

If sola scriptura is so important, then it would be stated the way it is in Acts 17:11, 2 Tim 3:16-17, 1 Cor 4:9, Mark 7:6-13

The other warning that one must take to heart is one can't just argue the truth. The demon Satan is too clever and too powerful.

Matthew 22 Jesus debates the Sadducees "sola scriptura" and "puts them to silence" according to the text... and all the hearers - benefit.
In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus refutes the tradition of the Jews - sola scriptura.

The Bible gives him the title of god of the Earth and prince of the air. He'll twist the truth and convince people of his lie. What is the purpose of demonstrating sola scriptura?

It is the fact that "the Word of God is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword" Hebrews 4.

It is the fact that the "objective" method for a discussion that seeks to find "the truth" even if that truth contradicts your firmly held preferences - is to appeal to an external infallible standard -- the Word of God. Hence in Acts 17:11 we have non-Christians who are being told by their own magisterium not to listen to Paul - reading scripture, rejecting their tradition and pontiffs... and choosing Christianity "instead" -- which is how a lot of evanglism still happens today.

The non-Christian Jews were great at arguing that when the Christians came around with "the scriptures" and made their case for Christ - they were "divisive" and causing problems for their "brothers and sisters". Even in Matthew 10 Christ said this -

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

 

[tz620q]

St Iranaeus wrote

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorantof tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: Adversus Haereses Book 3 Chapter 2 Paragraph 1

Before someone points out Iranaeus’ comments on the authority of the Roman church I would like to point out that Iranaeus can only testify as to the validity and authority of the Roman church at the time when he wrote this in 180AD. The East West schism of 1054AD, and the many changes in Roman doctrines however were not known to Iranaeus which means the Roman Church’s validity and authority today cannot be assumed to be confirmed by him. The scriptures however have not changed so his views on the validity of the scriptures and one’s ability to interpret scriptures without knowledge of traditions still stands.

Yes, and Irenaeus was only using the Roman church as the prominent example, not the only example.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yes, and Irenaeus was only using the Roman church as the prominent example, not the only example.

He lists the bishops of Rome, successors of Peter no other! And identifies Rome as having primacy on doctrine. No other.

 

[tz620q]

He lists the bishops of Rome, successors of Peter no other! And identifies Rome as having primacy on doctrine. No other.

Below is the text of Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, paragraph 2:
"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, 826 inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

To emphasize the bold above without the final phrase of this sentence would be to state, what? Do you think this means that the Bishop of Rome has authority apart from tradition or through holding to the tradition. If you believe that the Bishop of Rome must also hold to tradition, then that tradition is what is preserved continuously by faithful men, everywhere. Irenaeus lists the Bishops of Rome but says he could reckon up the Bishops of all the Apostolic Churches, so he must be pointing to a universal and truly catholic faith and not creating a dichotomy between the Bishop of Rome and other Apostolic Bishops. It is too easy today to look back at this as a statement of Papal Infallibility, when I think his point is more about a universal faith rooted in the apostles than promoting one See over another. By the way, I agree with Papal Infallibility; but think that it must be rooted in the common belief and in apostolic tradition. I bet we agree on this.

 

[John tower]

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.

KJV says : That you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written ! : Not impressed with that new translation !

 

[John tower]

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 you don

 

[W2L]

If you don

Please finish your sentence. Thanks.

 

[John tower]

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 you don’t stay with scripture you open the door to a literally endless amount of doctrines of men : If they don’t have a doctrine for the situation they will simply make up a new one : So this will never end which is why you must stick with scripture : Sola Scripture : Amen !

 

[W2L]

If you don’t stay with scripture you open the door to a literally endless amount of doctrines of men : If they don’t have a doctrine for the situation they will simply make up a new one : So this will never end which is why you must stick with scripture : Sola Scripture : Amen !

Amen. I have the Lord's commands and teachings. I dont need any divisive theology.

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew 10 Christ said he was bringing in "divisive" and no question we see that division in the Jewish nation church to which he belonged - as a result of his teaching and the rejection of leadership - to it.

Same thing with the Protestant Reformation.

 

[BobRyan]

If you don’t stay with scripture you open the door to a literally endless amount of doctrines of men : If they don’t have a doctrine for the situation they will simply make up a new one : So this will never end which is why you must stick with scripture : Sola Scripture : Amen !

Key point - stick with the same model followed by the Apostles and NT saints.

 

[W2L]

Matthew 10 Christ said he was bringing in "divisive" and no question we see that division in the Jewish nation church to which he belonged - as a result of his teaching and the rejection of leadership - to it.

Same thing with the Protestant Reformation.

Yes divide believers from unbelievers. Believers however are exhorted to have no divisions. I blame denominational tradition.