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

Re: 1 Cor 4:6

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
        View Source
        • 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.