Beyond What is Written

A Defense of Sola Scriptura

1 Corinthians 4:6¹ states:

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Some have used this as a proof text for Sola Scriptura—that Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.

1 Corinthians was written in context of division in the church of Corinth. Paul is writing this letter in part to admonish the Corinthians for their sectarianism. Hence, in 1 Cor. 1:10-13 Paul writes:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul reiterates the concern over sectarianism elsewhere in the letter (1 Cor. 3:1-23). Given the clear rejection of the sects in Corinth and the theme of unity in the letter as a whole, the admonition in 1 Cor. 4:6 to not “go beyond what is written” is in reference to that. That is the reason Paul gives, stating, “…that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another,” (1 Cor. 4:6). Paul, as the ESVSB notes, further cites Scripture at the beginning to respond to the division(1 Cor. 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 3:20). His statement to not “go beyond” is an affirmation of the method he used up to this point—citing Scripture—the written word.

This seems like a good piece of evidence for Sola Scriptura, right? Not according to the Roman Catholics.² An old article by Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid argues that if Paul was arguing for Sola Scriptura there are four different possible interpretations:

(1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings
(2) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56)
(3) Accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written
(4) Accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

Roman Catholics and protestants can both agree that (1) and (2) are wrong. Neither (1) nor (2) are implied in the text, so it seems strange to include them. Madrid states that option (3) is wrong for a strange reason:

Option three fails because in order for sola scriptura to be a “biblical” doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one Bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition. But there are no such verses; and as we’ll see, 1 Corinthians 4:6 is no exception.

If (3) is a possible interpretation of 1 Cor. 4:6, there is one Bible verse that at least seems to say that Scripture is the sole rule of faith and therefore sufficient. It would seem that Madrid is assuming evidence away, at first glance. Of course, he thinks that there are other verses that cut against this interpretation. Regarding option (4), he states:

Option four is likewise untenable because it contradicts Paul’s express command in to “Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition.

Madrid is citing 2 Thess. 2:14-15, which states:

To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. ¹⁵ So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Madrid later cites 1 Corinth 11:2:

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Of course, it is implied that these “traditions” are in the form of spoken word rather than written word given that this 1 Corinth. is the first letter written to the Corinthians.

Madrid also cites 3 John 1:3:

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink.

Then 2 John 12:

Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

He also cites Acts 19:10 and 20:27 to show that the Apostles spread the Gospel through speech rather than writing. Seems like an open and shut case, right? Protestants are horribly wrong yet again! Not quite.

What Madrid fails to recognize is that the Gospel as a whole does not go beyond what is written. Whether by spoken or written word, the Gospel is a fulfillment of all that was encapsulated by the Old Testament. For example: Peter, in his sermon on Pentecost, cites both Joel and David (Acts 2:16-35). Old Testament citations are common throughout sermons and disputes in Acts (Acts 4:25-26, 7:1-53, 8:32-35, 13:16-47, 15:15-17, 28:23-28). Notably, Acts 28:23 states:

When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

Even in after Christ’s first coming, Paul appealed to the Old Testament.

None of this is to say that the Old Testament is the only rule of faith, but the New Testament is a conclusion and fulfillment of the old. Those who correctly understood the Old Testament, anticipated the New.

The Apostles, in giving these sermons, did not go beyond what was written. In fact, they often cited and used the written Old Testament to prove their claims.

One may retort, “But they talked about Christ’s life. That wasn’t written!” Correct. They even go as far as to use words of Christ that are not anywhere recorded in the Gospels as a rule of faith. It is stated in Acts 20:35:

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

These words are not recorded anywhere else in the New Testament. This quote is even cited as if Paul’s listeners were familiar with it. Maybe it made its way to Ephesus through word-of-mouth or some non-Apostolic written means. Maybe one of the Apostles shared this with them. This is a mystery to us.

Should we then conclude that the standard for faith should be broader than the written word? This would be a mistake.

All of Christ’s life was obedience. As a new Adam, Christ brought life into the world. As Romans 5:19 states:

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Christ succeeded where Adam failed. Christ obeyed. Adam did not. We are further told that Christ’s obedience was to the point of death (Philippians 2:8):

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Jesus’ obedience is further made evident by his resistance to Satan’s temptations in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). We are also told that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it (Matthew 5:17):

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

We are also told that the Old Testament bears witness to Christ:

Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:26-27)

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44)

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” (John 1:45)

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me… (John 5:39)

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages… (Romans 16:25)

Christ’s life was perfect obedience and a fulfillment of the law. Therefore, nothing that Christ did goes beyond the written word. In simple terms:

1. All that Christ said and did is in accordance with the Old Covenant scripture

2. The Old Covenant scripture is in written form

3. Therefore, all that Christ said and did does not “go beyond what is written”

4. Therefore, when the Apostles cite things about Christ that are not written, they are not going beyond what is written

With this in mind, let’s revisit 1 Cor. When the Corinthians are admonished to not go beyond what is written, Paul seems to be acting consistently. He cites the Old Testament throughout the early parts of the letter with respect to the sectarian controversy. Provided that Paul and the Apostles stick to the Old Law and the life of Christ in their public teaching, this does not conflict with any of the admonitions to obey their written and spoken teaching (2 Thess. 2:14-15) because it seems clear from the sermons we have that either the Old Covenant scripture or the life of Christ was cited as a rule of faith. Paul even expresses the same understanding of Christ’s life as a fulfillment of the Old Testament later in the same letter (1 Cor. 15:3-5):

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Repeating “in accordance with the Scriptures” seems to be driving home the importance of the Old Testament in prefiguring, prophesying, or governing Christ’s life.

Jesus as the New Moses

The following arguments are clearly connected to the above, but are not as fleshed out.

This point has been raised by Roman Catholic scholar Brant Pitre before: Christ is a new Moses. How so? A primary piece of evidence is that when Christ speaks to Moses on the mountain, Moses speaks to Christ about Christ’s “departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem,” (Luke 9:31). The word “departure” is not simply any old word. The Greek word here used is exodon—or exodos.

Yes, Christ was about to lead an exodus in Jerusalem just as Moses led an exodus from Egypt. There are many parallels between the Christ and the person of Moses, but one is that they each give their own ordinances. Like Moses, Christ delivers a new law. New laws for the new covenant. Of course, many of these are fundamentally the same (Matthew 22:36-40):

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

However, we are given new instruction in the form of written word by the Apostles and their agents. We are given new histories—the Gospels and Acts—and new instruction—the epistles. Of course, these are through the writing of mortal men, but they are inspired through the Holy Spirit. Like, God writing the 10 Commandments on the tablet on Mt. Sinai, the Holy Spirit uses the Apostles to write gospels and epistles for the governance of the new church.

And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God. (Exodus 31:18)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The writings of the New Testament are recognized by almost all Christian denominations as Scripture and inspired by the Holy Spirit—written by God. There is some evidence that the Apostles saw their own writing as Scripture:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Here Paul’s writings are considered Scripture by Peter. Furthermore, Paul, at times, seems to specify when he is speaking as Paul and when God is speaking:

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (1 Cor. 7:12)

Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. (1 Cor. 7:25)

None of this is to say that the law that Jesus has delivered to us is contrary to the old—he says the opposite, but in the pattern of Moses, Christ delivers us from the bondage of sin, institutes a new Passover (the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper) and a new law (the Apostolic deposit).

I will not fully flesh out this idea here. This article has already gone on for too long. If you think I made any errors or wrote any heresies, let me know.

Ultimately, 1 Cor. 4:6 is more of a rich defense of Sola Scriptura than Roman Catholic apologists give it credit for. In its context, it seems to support the idea that we should hold ourselves and the authorities of the Church to the standard of the written word. There is much more to say, but this seems sufficient for now.

1. All Scripture citations are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

2. Of course, no piece of evidence is good enough for them.