‍“Do Not Go Beyond What Is Written”

‍Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 establish sola Scriptura?

  Gary Hoge

‍1 Corinthians 4:6 says, “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”

‍Some Protestants claim that this verse establishes the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, which holds that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and that doctrines binding on all Christians must have sufficient warrant in Scripture. For example, Dr. Greg Bahnsen says,

‍In I Corinthians 4:6, we have what amounts to a virtual declaration of the Protestant doctrine or principle of sola Scriptura! … Isn’t that amazing? Here’s Paul (long before Luther, long before Calvin, long before the controversy in the late 20th century) saying, I want you to learn the meaning of this, “Not to go beyond the things which are written!” . . . It is very simply the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura.”¹

‍But by the admission of Protestant apologists such as James White, that principle could not apply while new revelation was still being given:

‍Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?²

‍By White’s own reasoning, then, sola Scriptura was not yet the Christian rule of faith when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. The apostles were still delivering authoritative revelation both orally and in writing, and many New Testament books—including 2 Corinthians, Romans, Acts, John, and Revelation—had not yet been written.

‍Therefore, Paul can’t have been telling the Corinthians that Scripture was their sole infallible rule of faith when he told them not to “go beyond what is written.” The scriptural rule of faith was still “coming into being,” and authoritative apostolic teaching was still being delivered orally as well as in writing. Nor does Paul give any indication that he is laying down a rule that would take effect only after the period of apostolic revelation had ended. And if that wasn’t what Paul was telling the Corinthians, it isn’t what the verse is telling us, either.

‍“I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos”

‍So, what was Paul telling them? In context, the verse concludes an exhortation against dividing into factions and elevating one teacher over another. The Corinthians were behaving in an immature and “fleshly” manner (3:3), some saying, “I am of Paul,” and others, “I am of Apollos.”

‍Paul explained that he had figuratively applied these things to himself and Apollos. His point was that Christian leaders are merely servants. One plants and another waters, but “neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” (3:7).

‍Later he wrote, “So then let no one boast in men” (3:21). And then, in the passage leading directly to 4:6, he said,

‍Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God. Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (4:5–6).

‍Notice that Paul himself tells us the purpose of his instruction: “so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” Whatever “not to exceed what is written” means, then, its immediate purpose is to correct the Corinthians’ pride and factionalism—not to establish Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.

‍It seems to me that Paul was saying, “By using myself and Apollos as examples, you can learn not to go beyond what the Scriptures I have been quoting teach about human wisdom and human leaders. They are merely servants, so don’t become arrogant by elevating one over another.”

‍What else could it mean?

‍Is that necessarily the meaning of this verse? No. Several plausible interpretations have been proposed. John Calvin thought the verse could be explained “either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward [in chapter 3].” Charles Hodge thought Paul meant not to go beyond “the doctrine taught in the Scriptures concerning ministers of religion.” G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson thought that going beyond what was written “would mean, quite simply, to boast in human wisdom by supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God. The last clause of 1 Corinthians 4:6 confirms this interpretation.”³

‍These interpretations differ in their details, but none treats the verse as a declaration of sola Scriptura. In fact, interpreting Paul as telling the Corinthians to accept only doctrines found in Scripture is difficult to reconcile with what he says later in this same letter, where he praises the Corinthians for holding to the traditions he had delivered to them:

‍I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you (1 Corinthians 11:2).

‍He similarly instructed the Thessalonians:

‍So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

‍Whatever 1 Corinthians 4:6 means, then, Paul cannot have been establishing Scripture as the Corinthians’ sole infallible rule of faith. He explicitly instructed Christians of that period to hold fast to apostolic teachings delivered orally as well as in writing.

‍To a modern Evangelical Christian reading the phrase in isolation, “Do not go beyond what is written” could certainly sound like a clear and concise statement of the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. I understand why it’s tempting to point to it as a biblical justification of that doctrine. But that isn’t what Paul was telling the Corinthians. 

‍There are three reasons: first, in context Paul is discussing factionalism and boasting, not the Christian rule of faith; second, sola Scriptura, by White’s own admission, did not apply during this period of ongoing revelation; and third, Paul explicitly instructed Christians of that period to hold fast to apostolic teachings delivered orally as well as in writing.

‍__________

^‍1 Greg Bahnsen, Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction? A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura, https://christiantruth.com/articles/bahnsen/.

^‍2 James White, “A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” Alpha and Omega Ministries blog, April 29, 1998, https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/a-review-and-rebuttal-of-steve-rays-article-why-the-bereans-rejected-sola-scriptura/.

^‍3 Quoted in Douglas Beaumont, “Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 Teach Sola Scriptura?”, https://douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/20/does-1-corinthians-46-teach-sola-scriptura/.