Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 establish sola scriptura?

The preceding chapters address factions and boasting. Paul applies his examples of himself and Apollos so no one becomes puffed up for one teacher against another. That is the immediate problem in view.

You connect the phrase to Paul’s stated concern about rivalries and pride rather than treating it as a detached slogan.

He is giving a complete list of every book Christians may ever treat as Scripture.

The passage does not list books or discuss how a future canon would close. Paul is addressing division in Corinth.

The wording can support Scripture as a standard, but Paul does not identify a completed future canon here. To make the verse prove an exhaustive rule for every era, we would need to establish what “written” refers to and why Paul’s instruction applies that way beyond this dispute.

You grant the verse’s force while naming the extra steps needed to turn it into a canon claim.

No. Paul can only mean the examples he just gave, so Scripture has no bearing on the point.

That is too narrow. Paul’s wording may invoke Scripture or a scriptural principle; the question is whether that alone establishes the full later doctrine.

It shows that oral apostolic teaching and letters both carried authority for the Thessalonians while Paul and the apostles taught them. It cautions against making 1 Corinthians 4:6 a simple written-only rule for that moment, but it does not by itself prove an ongoing oral apostolic authority after the apostles.

You use Paul’s instruction in its setting without treating it as a complete answer about authority in later centuries.

Yes. It proves that any later church can introduce new scripture or binding tradition.

Paul is referring to teaching delivered by the apostles to that community. A separate argument is needed to establish that authority after the apostolic period.