Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1 Cor 4:6

Expand Messages
  • Joshua Greve
    Hello, I am new to your forum. I grew up Lutheran and have been Orthodox for over 10 years. Recently I got into a discussion with a Lutheran about Sola
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 8, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      I am new to your forum. I grew up Lutheran and have been Orthodox for over
      10 years. Recently I got into a discussion with a Lutheran about Sola
      Scriptura. One of the many verses he posited as proof that the concept was
      alive and well among the apostles was 1st Cor 4:6 .

      I am sure many of you are not a stranger to this verse and its application
      among Lutherans and other Sola Scripturaists. I have two questions:

      1) What does Paul want them to understand with these words? In other words,
      how did he intend them to applied, understood?

      2) In the NIV do not go beyond what is written is in quotes ("") but it
      doesn't give a reference. In other translations including my Greek Parallel
      I don't see any kind of quotes (although I don't know if koine Greek even
      used anything like quotes). Any insight on both the different translations
      and the where the quote comes from?

      Thanks in advance!

      Josh


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard K. Futrell
      Josh: WARNING: Lutheran Response! Josh, I’ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes to lurk on this board. 1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 10, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Josh:

        WARNING: Lutheran Response!

        Josh, I’ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
        to lurk on this board.

        1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
        consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
        “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” In that
        context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
        “not to go beyond what is written.”

        Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can’t
        state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
        of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
        least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
        wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.

        This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
        writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
        time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
        based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
        “sola scriptura.”

        Josh, remember that “sola Scriptura” originally meant that
        scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
        very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
        is the only authority. That’s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
        a confession, which also includes the creeds.

        So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
        “sola Scriptura” as it is meant to be understood. However, this
        verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
        others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
        alone is the only authority (really “nuda Scriptura”).

        The Bible doesn’t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
        contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, “So then, brothers, stand
        firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
        word or by our letter.” The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
        Corinth, “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
        to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians
        11:2).

        So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
        we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
        “Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
        me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
        deposit that was entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).

        The Church is to “guard the good deposit.” This deposit isn’t
        only the Bible, for the Bible isn’t the only authority in our
        faith-life. That’s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
        continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
        statements of faith were also part of the “good deposit.”

        Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, “Let the inspired Scriptures
        then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
        dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (“On the Holy
        Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, “I will not
        rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
        matter will remain certain and steadfast” (Homily 8 “On Repentance
        and the Church”).

        So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
        Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
        understanding of “sola Scriptura,” which is really “nuda
        Scriptura.” Scripture does not teach “nuda Scriptura,” but it
        does allow for “sola Scriptura” properly understood.

        You need to find out if you friend is talking about “nuda
        Scriptura” or the real “sola Scriptura.” One is biblical, the
        other is not.

        --Rich Futrell, Pastor
        Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
        http://sothl.com

        Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
        Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
        of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
        His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
        of life for body, soul, and spirit.




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jeremy Finck
        Pastor Futrell, You are rare breed of Lutheran. Not many Lutherans (let alone other Protestants) get the nuance of the original Sola Scriptura teaching of the
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Pastor Futrell,

          You are rare breed of Lutheran. Not many Lutherans (let alone other
          Protestants) get the nuance of the original Sola Scriptura teaching of the
          Protestant Reformation. I'm pleased to see that there are still a few
          Lutherans out there who get that.

          That being said, I wrote my response below prior to reading your response.
          In most places, Sola Scriptura could be replaced with Nuda Scriptura. But I
          think the points raised at the end, still stand.

          Here is my original response:

          To be honest, even before becoming Orthodox, I had a hard time with
          understanding how books written as early as 1 Corinthians (dated as being
          written before any other book in the New Testament) could be referring to
          anything but the Old Testament, when referring to Scripture.

          However for this passage, I see more than one possible interpretation that
          could be acceptable. Chris, Randy, & everyone else, call me out if I'm off
          base.

          First, the Orthodox Study Bible says this about 1 Cor 4:6:

          "In the expression 'beyond what is written', most likely Paul refers to the
          whole OT, reminding the Corinthians that all Scripture urges us not to be
          proud and contentious..."

          While I think that could be partially correct, I think a better explanation
          is possible. For example, an online Roman Catholic forum said that in 1 Cor
          4:6, Paul is cross-referencing this passage with one of the Old Testament
          books that Protestants removed from the Bible.

          "Thomas Aquinas points this out:

          "that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with
          pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ�s ministers, against another
          [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the
          foregoing; for Wis (4:19) states: 'He will dash them puffed up and
          speechless to the ground.'

          "In other words, don't go beyond what is written in Wisdom about being
          'puffed up' and arrogant."

          Wisdom of Solomon 4:19 says:
          " And they shall fall after this without honour, and be a reproach among the
          dead for ever: for he shall burst them puffed up and speechless, and shall
          shake them from the foundations, and they shall be utterly laid waste: they
          shall be in sorrow, and their memory shall perish."

          I find this explanation highly plausible, as Paul frequently quotes and
          paraphrases sections of the Wisdom of Solomon in his epistles.

          In my experience, most contemporary Orthodox teachers and writers tend not
          to have well perpared answers for folks who believe a Sola Scriptura type
          doctrine. Especially when those folks start "proof-texting".

          And to the Orthodox's defense, until the last hundred years or so the
          Orthodox hadn't really encountered or interacted with a significant enough
          number of people who believe something like Sola Scriptura such that they
          would have a well developed response. Many have difficulty understanding how
          people could buy in to such a teaching in the first place. From an
          outsider's perspective, the various protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura
          are novel and strange and go against common sense. I'm not saying that to be
          mean. It's just my experience when interaction with non-protestant folks,
          whether they be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, atheist/agnostic, wiccan,
          or whatever. I believed in Sola Scriptura as a Missouri Synod Lutheran for
          at least 23 years of my life. It's what I was raised believing. It took me a
          while to really get why it seemed so strange to most people.

          More common responses I have encountered do not specifically address a
          proof-text. The responses go something along the lines of that Sola
          Scriptura has never been a teaching of the Church. It was a novlety or
          innovation of the protestant Reformation. It simply had no history prior to
          that time. But strangely, in developing this doctrine of Sola Scriptura,
          those same protestants removed a significant number of books from the Old
          Testament, even though the Church had been using them from the beginning,
          and recogniized them as Holy Scripture. There may have been a handful of
          discussions about removing two or three of them them during the Ecumenical
          Councils. But there was more discussion about whether or not to include
          books like Jude, Revelation, James, and others. Not to mention that in the
          end, at least six different lists of books were deemed as acceptable.... but
          I digress.

          How is it that one can hold to a view of plenary verbal inspiration, and
          remove more than ten books from that collection of books at the same time?
          Let's talk about how we view canonicity before we talk about Sola
          Scriptura. If Lutherans or other protestants want to say they believe Sola
          Scriptura about the texts received by the Church, why did they remove so
          many of those books that were clearly accepted by the Church more easily
          than other books the protestants chose to keep?

          On this forum, those questions are merely rhetorical, since we are not here
          to discuss Lutheran teaching. However, if you simply cannot let those
          questions stand, please feel free to respond to me directly, outside of this
          group.

          Anyway, that last part is what finally turned me from Sola Scriptura.
          Regardless of how one proof-texts, it's simply not a historically viable
          doctrine. Every book has a context in which it can be rightly understood.
          The books of the Bible were written in a context. That context is the
          Church.

          Jeremy
          On Oct 10, 2011 3:59 PM, "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...>
          wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Josh:
          >
          > WARNING: Lutheran Response!
          >
          > Josh, I�ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
          > to lurk on this board.
          >
          > 1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
          > consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
          > �servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.� In that
          > context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
          > �not to go beyond what is written.�
          >
          > Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can�t
          > state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
          > of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
          > least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
          > wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.
          >
          > This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
          > writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
          > time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
          > based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
          > �sola scriptura.�
          >
          > Josh, remember that �sola Scriptura� originally meant that
          > scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
          > very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
          > is the only authority. That�s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
          > a confession, which also includes the creeds.
          >
          > So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
          > �sola Scriptura� as it is meant to be understood. However, this
          > verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
          > others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
          > alone is the only authority (really �nuda Scriptura�).
          >
          > The Bible doesn�t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
          > contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, �So then, brothers, stand
          > firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
          > word or by our letter.� The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
          > Corinth, �I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
          > to the traditions just as I delivered them to you� (1 Corinthians
          > 11:2).
          >
          > So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
          > we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
          > �Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
          > me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
          > deposit that was entrusted to you� (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
          >
          > The Church is to �guard the good deposit.� This deposit isn�t
          > only the Bible, for the Bible isn�t the only authority in our
          > faith-life. That�s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
          > continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
          > statements of faith were also part of the �good deposit.�
          >
          > Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, �Let the inspired Scriptures
          > then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
          > dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words� (�On the Holy
          > Trinity�, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, �I will not
          > rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
          > matter will remain certain and steadfast� (Homily 8 �On Repentance
          > and the Church�).
          >
          > So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
          > Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
          > understanding of �sola Scriptura,� which is really �nuda
          > Scriptura.� Scripture does not teach �nuda Scriptura,� but it
          > does allow for �sola Scriptura� properly understood.
          >
          > You need to find out if you friend is talking about �nuda
          > Scriptura� or the real �sola Scriptura.� One is biblical, the
          > other is not.
          >
          > --Rich Futrell, Pastor
          > Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
          > http://sothl.com
          >
          > Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
          > Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
          > of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
          > His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
          > of life for body, soul, and spirit.
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • joshinmich
          Thank you Pastor: From your description, it would seem he is talking about nuda Scriptura, but I don t know if he would consider himself believing as much. He
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you Pastor:

            From your description, it would seem he is talking about nuda Scriptura, but I don't know if he would consider himself believing as much.

            He believes that Scriptures interprets Scripture and that Holy Tradition (extra-biblical) is never necessary to come to final conclusions on some doctrinal questions. That the words are evident and anything outside of the Bible is not "necessary" (a word we Orthodox have a hard time with).

            Would this go along with nuda Scriptura?

            Thank you so much for your help. God bless you!

            Josh

            --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Josh:
            >
            > WARNING: Lutheran Response!
            >
            > Josh, I’ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
            > to lurk on this board.
            >
            > 1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
            > consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
            > “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” In that
            > context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
            > “not to go beyond what is written.”
            >
            > Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can’t
            > state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
            > of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
            > least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
            > wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.
            >
            > This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
            > writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
            > time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
            > based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
            > “sola scriptura.”
            >
            > Josh, remember that “sola Scriptura” originally meant that
            > scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
            > very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
            > is the only authority. That’s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
            > a confession, which also includes the creeds.
            >
            > So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
            > “sola Scriptura” as it is meant to be understood. However, this
            > verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
            > others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
            > alone is the only authority (really “nuda Scriptura”).
            >
            > The Bible doesn’t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
            > contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, “So then, brothers, stand
            > firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
            > word or by our letter.” The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
            > Corinth, “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
            > to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians
            > 11:2).
            >
            > So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
            > we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
            > “Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
            > me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
            > deposit that was entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
            >
            > The Church is to “guard the good deposit.” This deposit isn’t
            > only the Bible, for the Bible isn’t the only authority in our
            > faith-life. That’s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
            > continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
            > statements of faith were also part of the “good deposit.”
            >
            > Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, “Let the inspired Scriptures
            > then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
            > dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (“On the Holy
            > Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, “I will not
            > rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
            > matter will remain certain and steadfast” (Homily 8 “On Repentance
            > and the Church”).
            >
            > So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
            > Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
            > understanding of “sola Scriptura,” which is really “nuda
            > Scriptura.” Scripture does not teach “nuda Scriptura,” but it
            > does allow for “sola Scriptura” properly understood.
            >
            > You need to find out if you friend is talking about “nuda
            > Scriptura” or the real “sola Scriptura.” One is biblical, the
            > other is not.
            >
            > --Rich Futrell, Pastor
            > Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
            > http://sothl.com
            >
            > Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
            > Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
            > of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
            > His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
            > of life for body, soul, and spirit.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • joshinmich
            Thanks for you thoughts! I think that was an interesting thought regarding Wisdom. I am not trying to be a conspiracy theorists here, but does anyone think
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for you thoughts! I think that was an interesting thought regarding Wisdom.

              I am not trying to be a conspiracy theorists here, but does anyone think it strange that the NIV put "Do not go beyond what is written" in quotation marks as if to suggest...? what exactly?

              --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Finck <AdonaiUplifts@...> wrote:
              >
              > Pastor Futrell,
              >
              > You are rare breed of Lutheran. Not many Lutherans (let alone other
              > Protestants) get the nuance of the original Sola Scriptura teaching of the
              > Protestant Reformation. I'm pleased to see that there are still a few
              > Lutherans out there who get that.
              >
              > That being said, I wrote my response below prior to reading your response.
              > In most places, Sola Scriptura could be replaced with Nuda Scriptura. But I
              > think the points raised at the end, still stand.
              >
              > Here is my original response:
              >
              > To be honest, even before becoming Orthodox, I had a hard time with
              > understanding how books written as early as 1 Corinthians (dated as being
              > written before any other book in the New Testament) could be referring to
              > anything but the Old Testament, when referring to Scripture.
              >
              > However for this passage, I see more than one possible interpretation that
              > could be acceptable. Chris, Randy, & everyone else, call me out if I'm off
              > base.
              >
              > First, the Orthodox Study Bible says this about 1 Cor 4:6:
              >
              > "In the expression 'beyond what is written', most likely Paul refers to the
              > whole OT, reminding the Corinthians that all Scripture urges us not to be
              > proud and contentious..."
              >
              > While I think that could be partially correct, I think a better explanation
              > is possible. For example, an online Roman Catholic forum said that in 1 Cor
              > 4:6, Paul is cross-referencing this passage with one of the Old Testament
              > books that Protestants removed from the Bible.
              >
              > "Thomas Aquinas points this out:
              >
              > "that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with
              > pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ�s ministers, against another
              > [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the
              > foregoing; for Wis (4:19) states: 'He will dash them puffed up and
              > speechless to the ground.'
              >
              > "In other words, don't go beyond what is written in Wisdom about being
              > 'puffed up' and arrogant."
              >
              > Wisdom of Solomon 4:19 says:
              > " And they shall fall after this without honour, and be a reproach among the
              > dead for ever: for he shall burst them puffed up and speechless, and shall
              > shake them from the foundations, and they shall be utterly laid waste: they
              > shall be in sorrow, and their memory shall perish."
              >
              > I find this explanation highly plausible, as Paul frequently quotes and
              > paraphrases sections of the Wisdom of Solomon in his epistles.
              >
              > In my experience, most contemporary Orthodox teachers and writers tend not
              > to have well perpared answers for folks who believe a Sola Scriptura type
              > doctrine. Especially when those folks start "proof-texting".
              >
              > And to the Orthodox's defense, until the last hundred years or so the
              > Orthodox hadn't really encountered or interacted with a significant enough
              > number of people who believe something like Sola Scriptura such that they
              > would have a well developed response. Many have difficulty understanding how
              > people could buy in to such a teaching in the first place. From an
              > outsider's perspective, the various protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura
              > are novel and strange and go against common sense. I'm not saying that to be
              > mean. It's just my experience when interaction with non-protestant folks,
              > whether they be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, atheist/agnostic, wiccan,
              > or whatever. I believed in Sola Scriptura as a Missouri Synod Lutheran for
              > at least 23 years of my life. It's what I was raised believing. It took me a
              > while to really get why it seemed so strange to most people.
              >
              > More common responses I have encountered do not specifically address a
              > proof-text. The responses go something along the lines of that Sola
              > Scriptura has never been a teaching of the Church. It was a novlety or
              > innovation of the protestant Reformation. It simply had no history prior to
              > that time. But strangely, in developing this doctrine of Sola Scriptura,
              > those same protestants removed a significant number of books from the Old
              > Testament, even though the Church had been using them from the beginning,
              > and recogniized them as Holy Scripture. There may have been a handful of
              > discussions about removing two or three of them them during the Ecumenical
              > Councils. But there was more discussion about whether or not to include
              > books like Jude, Revelation, James, and others. Not to mention that in the
              > end, at least six different lists of books were deemed as acceptable.... but
              > I digress.
              >
              > How is it that one can hold to a view of plenary verbal inspiration, and
              > remove more than ten books from that collection of books at the same time?
              > Let's talk about how we view canonicity before we talk about Sola
              > Scriptura. If Lutherans or other protestants want to say they believe Sola
              > Scriptura about the texts received by the Church, why did they remove so
              > many of those books that were clearly accepted by the Church more easily
              > than other books the protestants chose to keep?
              >
              > On this forum, those questions are merely rhetorical, since we are not here
              > to discuss Lutheran teaching. However, if you simply cannot let those
              > questions stand, please feel free to respond to me directly, outside of this
              > group.
              >
              > Anyway, that last part is what finally turned me from Sola Scriptura.
              > Regardless of how one proof-texts, it's simply not a historically viable
              > doctrine. Every book has a context in which it can be rightly understood.
              > The books of the Bible were written in a context. That context is the
              > Church.
              >
              > Jeremy
              > On Oct 10, 2011 3:59 PM, "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...>
              > wrote:
              >
              > > **
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Josh:
              > >
              > > WARNING: Lutheran Response!
              > >
              > > Josh, I�ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
              > > to lurk on this board.
              > >
              > > 1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
              > > consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
              > > �servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.� In that
              > > context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
              > > �not to go beyond what is written.�
              > >
              > > Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can�t
              > > state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
              > > of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
              > > least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
              > > wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.
              > >
              > > This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
              > > writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
              > > time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
              > > based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
              > > �sola scriptura.�
              > >
              > > Josh, remember that �sola Scriptura� originally meant that
              > > scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
              > > very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
              > > is the only authority. That�s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
              > > a confession, which also includes the creeds.
              > >
              > > So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
              > > �sola Scriptura� as it is meant to be understood. However, this
              > > verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
              > > others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
              > > alone is the only authority (really �nuda Scriptura�).
              > >
              > > The Bible doesn�t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
              > > contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, �So then, brothers, stand
              > > firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
              > > word or by our letter.� The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
              > > Corinth, �I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
              > > to the traditions just as I delivered them to you� (1 Corinthians
              > > 11:2).
              > >
              > > So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
              > > we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
              > > �Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
              > > me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
              > > deposit that was entrusted to you� (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
              > >
              > > The Church is to �guard the good deposit.� This deposit isn�t
              > > only the Bible, for the Bible isn�t the only authority in our
              > > faith-life. That�s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
              > > continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
              > > statements of faith were also part of the �good deposit.�
              > >
              > > Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, �Let the inspired Scriptures
              > > then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
              > > dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words� (�On the Holy
              > > Trinity�, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, �I will not
              > > rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
              > > matter will remain certain and steadfast� (Homily 8 �On Repentance
              > > and the Church�).
              > >
              > > So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
              > > Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
              > > understanding of �sola Scriptura,� which is really �nuda
              > > Scriptura.� Scripture does not teach �nuda Scriptura,� but it
              > > does allow for �sola Scriptura� properly understood.
              > >
              > > You need to find out if you friend is talking about �nuda
              > > Scriptura� or the real �sola Scriptura.� One is biblical, the
              > > other is not.
              > >
              > > --Rich Futrell, Pastor
              > > Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
              > > http://sothl.com
              > >
              > > Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
              > > Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
              > > of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
              > > His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
              > > of life for body, soul, and spirit.
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • joshinmich
              Also, pastor, do you mind sending me any references that shows Luther to be a Sola Scriptura-ist as opposed to a nuda Scriptura-ist? Or something that speaks
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Also, pastor, do you mind sending me any references that shows Luther to be a Sola Scriptura-ist as opposed to a nuda Scriptura-ist? Or something that speaks to when this innovation came about? I am quite sure my friend will say that he is completely in line with Luther on this.

                Thanks

                my email is joshuajames78@...

                --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > Josh:
                >
                > WARNING: Lutheran Response!
                >
                > Josh, I’ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
                > to lurk on this board.
                >
                > 1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
                > consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
                > “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” In that
                > context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
                > “not to go beyond what is written.”
                >
                > Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can’t
                > state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
                > of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
                > least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
                > wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.
                >
                > This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
                > writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
                > time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
                > based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
                > “sola scriptura.”
                >
                > Josh, remember that “sola Scriptura” originally meant that
                > scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
                > very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
                > is the only authority. That’s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
                > a confession, which also includes the creeds.
                >
                > So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
                > “sola Scriptura” as it is meant to be understood. However, this
                > verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
                > others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
                > alone is the only authority (really “nuda Scriptura”).
                >
                > The Bible doesn’t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
                > contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, “So then, brothers, stand
                > firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
                > word or by our letter.” The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
                > Corinth, “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
                > to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians
                > 11:2).
                >
                > So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
                > we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
                > “Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
                > me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
                > deposit that was entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
                >
                > The Church is to “guard the good deposit.” This deposit isn’t
                > only the Bible, for the Bible isn’t the only authority in our
                > faith-life. That’s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
                > continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
                > statements of faith were also part of the “good deposit.”
                >
                > Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, “Let the inspired Scriptures
                > then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
                > dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (“On the Holy
                > Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, “I will not
                > rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
                > matter will remain certain and steadfast” (Homily 8 “On Repentance
                > and the Church”).
                >
                > So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
                > Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
                > understanding of “sola Scriptura,” which is really “nuda
                > Scriptura.” Scripture does not teach “nuda Scriptura,” but it
                > does allow for “sola Scriptura” properly understood.
                >
                > You need to find out if you friend is talking about “nuda
                > Scriptura” or the real “sola Scriptura.” One is biblical, the
                > other is not.
                >
                > --Rich Futrell, Pastor
                > Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
                > http://sothl.com
                >
                > Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
                > Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
                > of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
                > His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
                > of life for body, soul, and spirit.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • randall hay
                Blessed Theodoret and St John Chrysostom likewise see do not go beyond what is written as a reference to what the Bible says about not being proud.
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Blessed Theodoret and St John Chrysostom likewise see "do not go beyond what is
                  written" as a reference to what the Bible says about not being proud. Theodoret
                  tosses out Mk 9:35 and 10:44 as examples; Chrysostom Mt 7:3.


                  Neither would quibble with any other examples (which, as the OSB suggests, can
                  be found in every nook and corner of Scripture).

                  For the purposes of the question at hand, neither sees "do not go beyond what is
                  written" to imply that one can interpret Scripture individually, without the
                  teaching handed down by the apostles and preserved in the Church, "tradition."

                  By the way, the NIV always translates paradosis as "tradition" when it is used
                  in a negative sense; when Scripture speaks of paradosis in a postive sense ,the
                  NIV translates it "teaching" or something.

                  So much for faithfulness to Scripture.





                  ________________________________
                  From: Richard K. Futrell <PastorFutrell@...>
                  To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Mon, October 10, 2011 4:59:52 PM
                  Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] 1 Cor 4:6




                  Josh:

                  WARNING: Lutheran Response!

                  Josh, I’ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
                  to lurk on this board.

                  1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
                  consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
                  “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” In that
                  context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
                  “not to go beyond what is written.”

                  Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can’t
                  state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
                  of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
                  least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
                  wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.

                  This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
                  writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
                  time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
                  based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
                  “sola scriptura.”

                  Josh, remember that “sola Scriptura” originally meant that
                  scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
                  very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
                  is the only authority. That’s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
                  a confession, which also includes the creeds.

                  So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
                  “sola Scriptura” as it is meant to be understood. However, this
                  verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
                  others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
                  alone is the only authority (really “nuda Scriptura”).

                  The Bible doesn’t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
                  contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, “So then, brothers, stand
                  firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
                  word or by our letter.” The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
                  Corinth, “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
                  to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians
                  11:2).

                  So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
                  we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
                  “Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
                  me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
                  deposit that was entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).

                  The Church is to “guard the good deposit.” This deposit isn’t
                  only the Bible, for the Bible isn’t the only authority in our
                  faith-life. That’s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
                  continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
                  statements of faith were also part of the “good deposit.”

                  Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, “Let the inspired Scriptures
                  then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
                  dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (“On the Holy
                  Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, “I will not
                  rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
                  matter will remain certain and steadfast” (Homily 8 “On Repentance
                  and the Church”).

                  So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
                  Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
                  understanding of “sola Scriptura,” which is really “nuda
                  Scriptura.” Scripture does not teach “nuda Scriptura,” but it
                  does allow for “sola Scriptura” properly understood.

                  You need to find out if you friend is talking about “nuda
                  Scriptura” or the real “sola Scriptura.” One is biblical, the
                  other is not.

                  --Rich Futrell, Pastor
                  Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
                  http://sothl.com

                  Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
                  Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
                  of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
                  His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
                  of life for body, soul, and spirit.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.