Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 prove sola scripture?

[W2L]

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.

 

[Philip_B]

1 Corinthians 4:6
I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, ‘Nothing beyond what is written’, so that none of you will be puffed up in favour of one against another.​

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.

The text seems to be suggesting that Paul is arguing that people should listen to what he has written, not what people say about what he has written. In a sense he is pleading for people not to take his words further than he intends.

 

[Ron Gurley]

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

 

[W2L]

1 Corinthians 4:6
I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, ‘Nothing beyond what is written’, so that none of you will be puffed up in favour of one against another.​

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.

The text seems to be suggesting that Paul is arguing that people should listen to what he has written, not what people say about what he has written. In a sense he is pleading for people not to take his words further than he intends.

Self authenticating? We use scripture to prove scripture all the time. I'll need to think about the rest of your answer. Thank you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Luke explains why he wrote his gospel.

“Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭1:1-4‬

 

[W2L]

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

Why then do Catholics seem to dislike Sola scripture?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why then do Catholics seem to dislike Sola scripture?

When Protestants post scriptures lol

 

[Doug Melven]

I don't think that verse proves Sola Scriptura.
2 Timothy 3:16 does though.
God's Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.
That verse doesn't say other things are profitable, it says the Word of God is.

Other things can be profitable as well. But, they are not equal to God's Word.
Other things may have unforeseen side effects, like death. Proverbs 14:12
God's Word is the best way to go IMO.
Others may disagree, that is there right.

 

[tampasteve]

If it does in fact mean that then we have to come to the inevitable conclusion that only the Jewish Scriptures are sacred as they were the only ones written at the time, but even they were not a set cannon yet. I agree with @Philip_B , Paul is writing about not taking his words for more than what is written, not to put words in his mouth as it were.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Paul is only referring to the inspired / God breathed / Spirit superintended "word of God".

 

[dzheremi]

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.

Let's not stop there, my friend! Let's quote the entire paragraph and the paragraph that follows it, to get a fuller picture of why the saint has written that:

1. 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 ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

(source; emphasis added)

+++

The first emphasized part shows why St. Irenaeus wrote about tradition as he did in that paragraph: because the heretics he is referring to took the wisdom written of in the scriptures to be with this or that individual preacher, according to their idea that they (and not the Church, the Apostles, and the Fathers) had gotten it right, and therefore the Church and its tradition received from the Apostles is in fact wrong.

This is why in the second paragraph, he begins by pointing out that in answer to this idea, the heretics are actually shown what the authentic tradition is -- in other words, tradition is not pitted against scripture as though they are two opposing poles, only the idea that the authentic tradition is with the heretics who preach themselves, rather than the faith of the Church.

Tradition is preserved within the Church not for its own sake, but to preserve the authentic teaching as received from the apostles against those who had arisen later in attempt to topple that in favor of their own teachings: Marcion and his mutilation of scripture and rejection of the God of the Old Testament as the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (in the 140s); Montanus and the other advocates of "new prophecy" meant to supersede that which had been given to the Apostles and through them to the Church (in the 170s); the various adoptionists like Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century) and Paul of Samosata (3rd century), etc.

 

[dreadnought]

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, I wouldn't agree with your conclusion. This is a small passage taken out of context, but I would just say it means don't read something into Scripture - take it at face value.

We are going to walk with the Lord and learn new things, so I am uncomfortable with the "sola scripture" thing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Let's not stop there, my friend! Let's quote the entire paragraph and the paragraph that follows it, to get a fuller picture of why the saint has written that:

1. 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 ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

(source; emphasis added)

+++

The first emphasized part shows why St. Irenaeus wrote about tradition as he did in that paragraph: because the heretics he is referring to took the wisdom written of in the scriptures to be with this or that individual preacher, according to their idea that they (and not the Church, the Apostles, and the Fathers) had gotten it right, and therefore the Church and its tradition received from the Apostles is in fact wrong.

This is why in the second paragraph, he begins by pointing out that in answer to this idea, the heretics are actually shown what the authentic tradition is -- in other words, tradition is not pitted against scripture as though they are two opposing poles, only the idea that the authentic tradition is with the heretics who preach themselves, rather than the faith of the Church.

Tradition is preserved within the Church not for its own sake, but to preserve the authentic teaching as received from the apostles against those who had arisen later in attempt to topple that in favor of their own teachings: Marcion and his mutilation of scripture and rejection of the God of the Old Testament as the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (in the 140s); Montanus and the other advocates of "new prophecy" meant to supersede that which had been given to the Apostles and through them to the Church (in the 170s); the various adoptionists like Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century) and Paul of Samosata (3rd century), etc.

Yes I agree that the gnostics were teaching an extremely different gospel all together but their teachings weren’t even close to the scriptures or the traditions of the church. This was a completely different gospel that is utterly impossible to conclude by reading the scriptures by themselves. Iranaeus refuted them using the scriptures and they claimed that without understanding the aeon traditions no one can interpret the scriptures correctly. Iranaeus’ first reaction was to produce the scriptures as proof of what the apostles and Jesus taught to refute their heresy. Often when people do this today they are met with the same exact lame excuses that Iranaeus was met with. This is exactly why I bring this up when discussing sola scriptura.

 

[W2L]

No, I wouldn't agree with your conclusion. This is a small passage taken out of context, but I would just say it means don't read something into Scripture - take it at face value.

We are going to walk with the Lord and learn new things, so I am uncomfortable with the "sola scripture" thing.

That wasnt my conclusion, it was my question. Im quite comfortable with only what is written.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That wasnt my conclusion, it was my question. Im quite comfortable with only what is written.

To me it is about not making assumptions and just sticking to what is written. Many people will say that the apostles didn’t have New Testament writings but they were given the gift of prophecy and were taught directly by God so their writings were based on assumptions.

 

[dreadnought]

That wasnt my conclusion, it was my question. Im quite comfortable with only what is written.

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

 

[Ron Gurley]

Sacred Tradition and Papal Magisterium of the RCC are NOT Scriptura Suprema.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

I haven’t heard of any prophets lately.

 

[dreadnought]

I haven’t heard of any prophets lately.

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