1 CORINTHIANS 4:6 : Proof For Sola Scriptura?
By Bro. Nathan
Ang 1 Cor. 4:6 is one of the many misused prooftexts ng mga Protestants at ng iba pang churches na naniniwala sa false doctrine ng Sola Scriptura or much more famously known as "Bible Alone". oftentimes ay ginagamit ito ni Eli Soriano and other cults to attack the divinity ng Book Of Mormon. this passage however is taken out of context.
We should note na maging ang kilalang reformer na si John Calvin—does not think na ang 1 Cor. 4:6 ay isang magandang proof text in support sa Sola Scriptura. in fact ay sinabi niya na sa sinulat dito ni Paul na "it is written" (γέγραπται), it mainly refers sa mga Old Testament passages na kanyang qinoute (see John Calvin's Commentary on 1 Cor. 4:6). the text does not teach formal sufficiency as most protestants argue. if it does, hanggang 1 Cor. 4:6 lang since its only sa mga nainscripturate at wala nang iba. and we should not also ignore na ang mga oral traditions are also inspired pero hindi pa nasusulat/inscripturated (1 Ths. 2:13; 2 Ths. 2:15; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17). as said above by John Calvin and other commentators, including Protestant commentators--ang 1 Cor. 4:6 applies to the Old Testament quotations na sinitas ni Paul while writing his letters. hindi sa Christian Bible na nacompile lang centuries later pagkatapos ng inscripturation.
1 Cor. 1:19 - Isa. 29:14
1 Cor. 1:31 - Jer. 9:23
1 Cor. 2:9 - Isa. 64:3
1 Cor. 2:16 - Isa. 40:13
1 Cor. 3:19 - Job 5:13
1 Cor. 3:20 - Ps. 94:11
1 Cor. 4:5 - Lk. 12:1-3 (accessed through oral tradition)
Furthermore, Kevin J. Vanhoozer said :
Commentators disagree as to the meaning of “not [to go] beyond what is written.” Some translations take the neuter article to as a convention for introducing quoted material: “that you may learn . . . the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written’” (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). What, however, does this maxim mean and, in particular, what does “what is written” refer to? Exegetes express considerable Angst over the interpretation of this passage; hence the following suggestion must remain somewhat tentative.
It is likely that some at Corinth were trying to supplement the theology of the cross with a higher, second-state “spiritual wisdom,” a superior form of knowledge that led to boasting. Paul’s command not to go beyond what is written is best taken as referring to (1) the Old Testament in general; (2) what Paul has explicitly cited from the OT in 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20, about the importance of not boasting in worldly wisdom but rather in what the Lord has done; and (3) the “foolish” gospel message of the cross “in accordance with the Scriptures” (cf. 15:3-4). In context, then, to go beyond Scripture means “to boast in human wisdom supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God.”
According to this “Corinthian principle,” then, there is a sense in which Christians must never go beyond the “foolishness” of Christ crucified and the biblical texts that reveal it as God’s wisdom and power of salvation. The definitive message of the cross implies a certain sufficiency of the gospel. Christians must not think that they have a superior knowledge of God or way of salvation if this conflicts with the God of the gospel or with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To take leave of the gospel—call it the “bad beyond” (i.e., a move against the grain of the text)—is not an option. The question, however, is whether there is a “good beyond” (i.e., a move along the grain of the text)—a right and proper way of building on and respecting the prophets and apostles that yields a longer obedience, and a longer understanding. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “May We Go Beyond What is Written After All? The Pattern of Theological Authority and the Problem of Doctrinal Development” in D.A. Carson ed. The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures [Grand Rapids, Michigan.: Eerdmans, 2016], 747-92, here, pp. 749-50)
Catholic scholar Louis Alonso Schökel said :
" In St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter IV, Verse 6, we come upon a confusing sentence: “I have applied these things to myself . . . by way of illustration . . .that . . .you may learn not to be puffed up . . . transgressing what is written.” The biblical commentators cannot agree in explaining this sentence and many conjecture that the text was poorly transmitted. In detective-story fashion, they suspect a slight “crime” against the text, a crime of which only vague clues remain . . .The present text reads:
The scribe neglected to copy the negative, so in his revised text he wrote the negative between lines:
The next scribe copied this down correctly, but because he wanted to be perfectly accurate, he noted in the margin that the “not” had been written between the lines over the letter “a” in the word “that”;
Ινα μαθητε φρονειν “that you may learn to be prudent”
Ινα μη εις . . .φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up”
(το μη υπερ α γεγραπται)
(the “no” is written above the “a”)
The next copyist took the marginal note as a genuine addition and incorporated it into the text. In Greek, however, the letter “a” can be the neutral relative pronoun, meaning “that which.” Thus by incorporating the marginal note into the text he effected a change in its meaning:
Ινα μαθητε “that you may learn”
Το μη υπερ α γεγραπται φρονειν “not to know more than what is written”
Ινα μη εις υπερ του ενος φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up at another’s expense.”
(Louis Alonso Schökel, Understanding Biblical Research [London: Burns & Oates Limited 1968], 66-68.)
In conclusion, this verse does not support the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
