Replies

You are the only one to interpret as you accuse me.

I did not accuse you of anything.

The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.

Apparently you interpret Paul's statement as forseeing books that would not be written for decades.

Further, you have not addressed the probablility that "Do not go beyond what is written" is a colloquial aphorism. Here is the New International Version: "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."

Please note that the words "to go" are not present in the original Greek. The variety of translations of this difficult passage will make you head spin!

In addition, to interpret 1 Corinthians 4:6 as you do would contradict Paul himself! In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he said "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Did Paul make a mistake?

If Holy Tradition had to be written down to be "valid," it is odd that John wrote in 3 John 13 "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face."

The impossibility of reducing all of Holy Tradition to writing was also recognized by John in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

Finally, the fact that you and I disagree about the meaning of this one passage in the Bible shows that the 16th century novelty of sola scriptura provides no real guidance.

Yes, oral teachings preceded the NT. Luke concludes that in order to be SURE of correct teaching, he is going to write this message down. This also supports Sola Scriptura. Luke does not say that he would tell them these things so they may be sure, he said he would write them down. Sure, others wrote false teachings, but God took care of that when He assembled the Bible.

As stated above, it is clear from the Bible that John and Paul did not think that Holy Tradition had to be written down to be valid. Further, I think it is odd that you attribute the compilation of the Bible to God. It seems as though you are saying that the Holy Spirit was with the universal Church through the 5th Century, when it finalized the Canon, and then departed.

Did the Church fathers pick the books that went in the New Testament by luck? Or was God with them on the compilation of the Bible, but not when they made authoritative pronouncements about things like the sacrament of Confession, which was recognized hundreds of years before the canon was closed?

Whether Paul knew it or not at the time, we both call what he wrote "scripture" today. Again, Paul states a principle. I do not understand how your distinction counters the evidence I am giving.

Paul did write books which are considered to be scripture today. But your personal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6 requires us to believe that Paul meant that the only aspects of Holy Tradition that were meant to be followed were those which would be written down. As shown above, this is contradicted by John and Paul himself! Further, if this point was so important to Paul, why didn't he write more? Should we only do what Paul told us to do? After all, if Paul really meant that we are only bound by what is written down, one would think that he would have written more than a few letters.

I have acknowledged that NT teachings were passed down orally at the beginning, due to necessity. I presume that they were handed down without error, at least until they became scripture. After that, I look with extreme skepticism on anything that did not become scripture, or does not match the scripture.

I think that this is an entirely reasonable point. What about written teachings that predate the closing of the canon, but are not in the New Testament? Like the writings of the ante- and post- Nicene fathers?

Apparently you interpret Paul's statement as foreseeing books that would not be written for decades.

Yes, exactly. But it wasn't necessarily Paul's foreknowledge, it was God's. God ordained the books of the Bible ahead of time. That means one reference to "scripture" applies to all of scripture.

Further, you have not addressed the probability that "Do not go beyond what is written" is a colloquial aphorism. ... Please note that the words "to go" are not present in the original Greek.

I do not see enough evidence that it is a colloquial aphorism. I can appreciate that people interpret the Greek differently, but whoever put together the NIV, the version I use, apparently thought that it meant as it appears in the NIV. I can't throw it out because others disagree.

In addition, to interpret 1 Corinthians 4:6 as you do would contradict Paul himself! In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he said "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. Did Paul make a mistake?

No mistake. Certainly the teachings that later wound up in the Bible were correctly taught orally at the beginning. I presume Paul was referring to those oral teachings. I also presume that he did not mean any other oral teachings floating around that contradicted what he was then teaching. I do not take his statement to mean that anything oral is automatically correct.

It doesn't have to be written down to be valid, it has to be in agreement with scripture to be valid. I'm sure there must be some Tradition that is consistent with scripture. For example, Tradition says that you should confess your sins to a priest. By itself, I have no problem with that. The Bible says that we should confess our sins to God and to one another, not specifically to a priest. However, I do not think that your Tradition offends scripture at this stage.

Finally, the fact that you and I disagree about the meaning of this one passage in the Bible shows that the 16th century novelty of sola scriptura provides no real guidance.

How does that follow? Does everyone have to agree on a doctrine for it to be true? Wouldn't that invalidate all doctrine everywhere?

Further, I think it is odd that you attribute the compilation of the Bible to God. It seems as though you are saying that the Holy Spirit was with the universal Church through the 5th Century, when it finalized the Canon, and then departed.

I don't think the Spirit ever left the Church, and I don't think that the Spirit only leads Protestants. I think that men of both faiths leave God sometimes, when the Spirit guides them toward truth.

I don't think the Church Fathers picked the books. God did through them. And yes, I do think this was a special situation, and different from how the Spirit leads normally. I don't think that mistakes were possible in the creation and compilation of the Bible, but certainly men are capable of making mistakes in other spiritual matters.

What about written teachings that predate the closing of the canon, but are not in the New Testament? Like the writings of the ante- and post- Nicene fathers?

Without being directly familiar with those writings, the principle that I would lay out is fidelity to scripture, or at least not being in apparent or actual contradiction to it. For example, I do not have set in my mind any specific requirements for a "correct" worship service. I think people can worship "correctly" in many different ways, as long as scripture is not offended. So, whenever an Episcopalian Church preaches tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle, that offends scripture and is not a legitimate worship service.