Who wrote the Gospels from scripture alone?

This simply isn't true. I don't have time to write on it tonight, but I'd love to know where you got this from. BTW, it was the Council of Carthage in 397 that placed the books of the Nt in their current order, but they were only recognizing what had been accepted by the churches over the previous 300 years. For instance, Clement of Rome quoted from Hebrews in 95AD, calls Matt 9:13 'Scripture' and alludes to at least one other Gospel and most of Paul's letters. Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians around 150, quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Hebrews.

If there is no such Person as the Holy Spirit, you are undoubtedly right, but if there is, you are wrong and are deifying the Church.

Must go.

Steve

 

Excuse me, am I debating you or are you asking for help with your Catholic friend? I'm sure I'm wrong, but feel like you yourself are the Catholic.

At any rate, for your Catholic friend, my answer is, prove that "According to Matthew" was not in the original. If it is in every manuscript, who is to say it was not in the original? And as for your blanket statement that "no scholar believes" it was original, quote one single scholar who says emphatically that it wasn't and proves that and I'll be content.

Do you understand the concept of internal evidence? The linguistic evidence (syntax, semantics) does prove that both Acts and Luke were written by the same author. Whether they were anonymous or not has nothing to do with it.

Believers made that decision, just as I said. For example, here is what B. F. Westcott says about the writings of Ignatius in his epic A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament: "Though the Ignatian letters witness to three chief types of Apostolic teaching, one type stands forth in them with peculiar prominence. The image of St. Paul is stamped alike upon their language and their doctrine. The references to the New Testament are almost exclusively confined to his writings" (6th ed. p. 33).

So Ignatius is an example of an early believer who accepted the writings of Paul as Scripture. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the early believers rejected the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul and the letter to the Laodecians as Scripture. Only the Holy Spirit has this power, according to the Bible. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other human institution has the power to decide what is Scripture and what is not.

Once again, it is the Holy Spirit who does that. Virtually all true believers read Hebrews as Scripture, and are blesse by it. The same thing cannot be said of non-canonical books.

Did you even understand my original point about the Holy Spirit? And by the way, the Catholic church did not exist historically until 313, so it's pretty ridiculous to claim that they were the ones who decided what was Scripture when believers long, long before then were treating the books of the NT as Scripture and being blessed by them. Just read the early church fathers: Clement, the Didache and all the rest--none of them Catholics!!

 

You're not paying attention. I quoted 1 Tim. 3:16 as the source for the Baptist distinctive.

The Catholic is reasoning circularly. Ask him how he knows the Catholic Church is the true one since it didn't exist until hundreds of years after Christ. If he can't prove the Catholic church is the true one, then his argument is circular and totally based on church tradition, not on truth, either historical truth or Biblical truth.

You are not paying attention. You have not dealt with the Scripture I gave where Peter signifies the writings of Paul are Scripture. That's a starting place.

And the 381 date is baloney. The 2nd century canon of Marcion proves that there were books recognized as canonical long, long before 381.

 

Look, it boils down to one thing, faith! I have faith that these word are life and give life to those who believe. The catholics believe what they believe, because they put their faith in a man with the title "pope". I have my faith in one who is called Jesus!

 

Here is a scholarly source to prove you wrong: "We have no evidence that these gospels (meaning the Synoptics--JoJ) ever circulated without an appropriate designation, KATA MAQQAION (kata Matthaion, 'according to Matthew') or the like" (An Introduction to the New Testament, by D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo and Leon Morris, p. 66).

 

Exactly... The argument here is for Sacred Tradition.

It is almost impossible to argue with something like Sacred Tradition that cannot be codified, backed up, explained, or otherwise investigated. But that does not mean that Sacred Tradition (in the RCC sense) is TRUTH. It is what it is -- the word of man elevated to a position above the Word of God.

My question for our OP is simply this: Can you name me the doctrine or Sacred Tradition of man, whether by pope, bishop, priest, or other, that has the power of salvation that the Word of God in the Scriptures has?

Second, our OP needs to go back to the Reformation and review the writings of Martin Luther to discover just how far off the mark the RCC tradition actually was/is. With a bare minimum of theological research, this question COULD be put to rest for him, but it seems that he would rather trust someone instead of God and sound biblical scholarship.

Third, dismissal of the very witnesses that carried the scriptures from church to church well before they were codified into a canon. The Councils merely RECOGNIZED the already existing canon, they did not "give the church the Bible," which is another bit of revisionist history.

Not every NT author was an Apostle, but they had to have direct input from the Apostles. The conventions for superscripting names, etc., are not what ours are today -- the letter most often traveled by messenger, who would report to the receiving body the author of the piece, hence no direct name in many of the NT gospels or epistles.

Additionally, the RCC also authorized apocryphal works that are not part of our current canon. Those works were almost universally dismissed as SCRIPTURE by the earliest Fathers of the church, and that is why they were called "Apocrypha," and not Scripture. Those writings were useful for history, etc., but they do not carry the weight of Scripture, yet the RCC chose to include them in their canon -- largely because of the actions of one man, Jerome who gave the RCC a faulty Latin translation that mis-guided the RCC for centuries.

 

Again, the early Church fathers and theologians HAD aleady quoted and referred to essentially ALL of what would be known as being the canon as inspired from God, taking their position from jesus Himself ascribing divine approval on them...

The Church used/recognized/saw as inspired by god virtually all of what was to be in the Canon by mid to end of second century, so the Church councils merely officially affirmed what had been already recognized and being used as being from God...

Have to realise that your catholic friend is reasoning from a position that HAS to have it as he says it was, for if Not, the RC position of them being sole arbitrator of sound doctrine and RC being True Church falls to the wayside!

 

He then (if "he" is not "you") is in error, for he has totally missed the Great Schism. Also, if "all" denominations are "man made" then so too is the RCC.

About Peter being the first pope, I mentioned earlier that that was a nice bit or revisionist history. A check into the Scriptures will confirm that Christ gave the SAME COMMAND to ALL the disciples, not just Peter.

Spoken to Peter in the company of all the disciples:

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Spoken to all the disciples:

Mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:19 is the lynch-pin for the papacy in the RCC. Yet, Jesus spoke the same words in the company of all the disciples and reiterated them in the company of all the disciples.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus was saying, "You are Peter (petros = stone) and I am the (petra) ROCK upon which the church will be built. That interpretation certainly works out better with the multiple times (both in OT prophecies and in NT direct statements) where Jesus is called "the chief cornerstone."

 

If you recall the exchange Peter had just said you are the Christ. Peter said that from faith and Christ said by that faith he would build His church and Peter the little stone would lead the effort.

 

Also the interesting fact is that the early Church recognized James as head of the jerusalem Church, Not Peter, and the 3 pillers paul saw there were james/Peter/John , and Apostle Paul was seen by Peter to be His "Co-Pope" IF catholic teaching on papacy is correct!

 

There is relatively little pure “Tradition” that has no scriptural support. More often, the basis for the “Traditional” doctrine is found in scripture but the “Traditional” understanding of that scripture is not accepted by most Protestants. For example:

Baptismal regeneration: John 3:5; Acts 2:38, etc.

The real presence in the Eucharist (transubstantiation): John 6:53-59; 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, etc.

Purgatory: 1 Corinthians 3:11-15; Matthew 5:25-26, etc.

No self respecting Baptist, and few Protestants of any stripe, will accept these interpretations of scripture but they are nevertheless interpretations that are embraced by smart, well educated and reasonable men. If you doubt the level of their scholarship, GLF, maybe you could enroll in a night class at St. Meinrad.
Therefore, most “Tradition” really has its basis in scripture and the real “Tradition” is not so much going outside scripture but in the approach to its exegesis.

And thus is the source of Tradition. It is things people communicated by word of mouth but never got written down, at least not for several generations. Jude 3; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Actually, GLF, I think you got this backward. Jerome did not regard the Apocrypha as inspired and wanted them left out of his Vulgate. However, Pope Damasus I, who commissioned Jerome to do this work, insisted that they be left in.

 

Well...

Catholic version of "tradition" NOT same as the biblical idea/concept of it...

The NT scriptures were inspired by the HS, and the canon of the Bible was "set" after the Apostle John wrote down the revelation..

there might have been traditions in the sense that the culture of that time did pass down on oral reporting, but the entire process involved on te transmission and recording down of sacred texts was overseen by God from start to finish..

the Roman Catholic Church has added books to the Canon , NONE of which were ever rcognized by any early Church father as being inspired/from God as the Books that were already being quoted and used as scriptures...

Again, the Church had already been using and quoting as being sacred texts almost every Book that was officially said to be Canon by mid to late second century, in wriitings of early Church fathers ...

The authority of the Bible. its inspiration exists independent of the catholic Church...
"Catholic tradiitions" might allow in the false doctrines and teachings, but NONE of them would be found in the canon sacred texts, but the dubious/spurious non canonical books...

What the Council did was basically ratify and agree with the well establish list of Books that were already seen in the Church as being Canon of Bible for OT/NT...

 

saved by grace,

The truth of the matter is that your friend is feeding you half truths and a very slanted view of Scripture and the role of the Church. Obviously this isn't a good forum to discuss this with the cacophony of voices in here. Just be encouraged that there are extraordinarily good reasons for continuing in the faith you were raised, if you're willing to hear things out.

 

Kelly was regarded as a fool in his own time and no one sees him as an authority these days. Read Nothing but the Truth by Brian Edwards (Evangelical Press ISBN 0-85234-614-X). That will put you straight.

There was never any dispute at any time over the four Gospels, the Pauline Letters, 1John and 1Peter. That is about 90% of the NT. The cavills over the other books were only by a few people. The Canon was accepted by most people from the very first, as I have pointed out before.

He is right that Christ did not establish denominations; He didn't establish the Church of Rome for starters. There would have been no denominations if the Church had not become apostate. There were many who stood against Rome before Luther, but the Church of Rome killed them all, except the various Orthodox churches. Indeed it has killed many more Christians than the Moslems over the years. 'I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus' (Rev 17:6).

Ask your friends where the term 'Pope' is found in the Bible. Where are the Archbishops, Cardinals and Monseigneurs? Where are the celibate priests, or priests at all, come to that? Where are the Hail Marys? Where is the praying to the saints? Where are the statues? Who was it who burned the Lollards just for trying to read the Scriptures for themselves? Did Paul acknowledge Peter as infallible head of the Church (Gal 2:11ff)?

'...That you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written' (1Cor 4:6).

Steve

 

I don't think Kelly can be called a protestant, if he takes the view that Peter was "given the keys" -- surely that is a purely Catholic perspective and phrase?

The statement about a "final canon" is rather misleading. The Fathers did not hold the sort of view that this is being used to advance, but behaved as if the New Testament was scripture, and the books in it were delivered by the apostles to the churches that the founded.

But they were aware that there was a problem with *collecting* all the bits of scripture. The reason for this was simple; that, outside the core -- gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, 1 John -- many of the remaining texts were letters which were sent to people geographically separated. The early Church was an illegal organisation. It couldn't easily communicate some of these things. The result is uncertainty until the 4th century over some of the fringe items.

But the church never thought that it did not have the bible! There is no trace in the ancient literature of "wow, we've finally got a canon! yippee!" On the contrary, the lists of books in those 4th century councils are made, not to assert "this is the canon" but to say "there are a number of fakes being hoked up by heretics and Manichaeans -- please bear this in mind". The Decretum Gelasianum is online in English, and has a long list, not just of real books, but of fakes (which makes it of great interest).

Eusebius Church History is *exactly* the right book to read. It is also online. Much of book 3 is well worth perusing. The link is here.

Chapter 25 gives us the bit we are discussing, and I find it is always best to have the text before us, out in the open.

Eusebius is not writing as a man who says "we have no idea what the bible is". He's describing a situation, just after legalisation, when the status of some books was uncertain. He has four categories:

1. Orthodox and accepted by all Christians as apostolic.
2. Orthodox and accepted by many as apostolic
3. Orthodox, but not apostolic and so not scripture
4. Fakes by heretics and other rubbish.

The existence of category 4 is why the discussion takes place between #2 and #3. In the end, as we can see, pretty much anything with a reasonable claim to be apostolic was accepted.

The Greek Orthodox would have something to say about that. And there is the old response to "where was your faith to be found before Luther?" -- "It was to be found, where your faith is not to be found now, in the writings of the apostles and the words of Jesus Christ."

I fear you are being propagandised here. If the RCC is not a denomination, then the word has no meaning. And the RCC of the Council of Trent would not be recognisable to Eusebius, and is not, perhaps, the RCC of Vatican 2 either.

But ... do we have to do this? The world is engaged in forcing gay clergy upon churches, as a joke, to force the churches to bow the knee. The Catholics are resisting. We as Christians are -- I hope -- resisting. Why are we arguing about denominational stuff -- Baptist or RC -- in the face of the enemy and under attack from the Devil and his dupes? I fear that Satan is at work here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

hello,

This is my first post, thank you for allowing me to join your community and post my thoughts.

Saved by Grace, has brought up some very valid points and although the source of these questions has many of their own issues, they are none the less very valid.

While you can not arrive at the conclusion of sola scriptura from the scripture itself (that is circular reasoning at any rate). Neither can you arrive at the conclusion that the church is free to make up any creeds, codes, sayings, writings, rules etc that it wants. (that is also circular reasoning).

What we have come to believe, and what we hold as truth comes from the written and recorded eye witness testimony of those who have been touched by God. These events are not minor hum-drum, day in and day out anyone can clan say what they like events. They are massive, God stepping into human history and interrupting the normal operation of the world events. In the old testament you have Moses, and in the New Testament you have the Apostles of Jesus. In the old testament you have the deliverance of the Children of Israel from Egypt and in the New Testament you have the Incarnation, life death and resurrection of the Messiah.

In both cases God Chose specific men to impart divine information. This Divine information was to serve as the foundation for all other information later imparted to men from God. It is used as a measuring stick. The only time that God speaks in a way that caries the authority of a major change in direction and flow of Gods intent on earth is with a singular major event. ie, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Messiah etc. (history and logic demonstrate this)

Weather or not the "church" assembled the writings in the new testament or not is not the key issue. The point is this. Jesus gave instructions, teachings, and examples to his apostles and direct disciples. Who then in turn established the foundation of the church in the first century in the 60 some years following the resurrection of Jesus. They wrote books and letters to assist and form the foundation that was being laid for all the future generations who would believe. Just as Moses and the Law had done before them.

During the first two centuries of the Church many and varying heresies and false writings began to spring up. The Church during those early years began to collect the known and verifiable writings of the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus himself. Who were His eye witnesses, or at the very farthest stretch, verified writings by those direct disciples of the Apostles who's writings obviously reflected the teachings of the Apostles everyone at that time were familiar with.

There were several different canonizations of the early writings during those early years. When the first christian disciples met to form the canon, they were not asking the question "is this inspired". They were asking the question "Can we verify this was written by an Apostle or direct Disciple of an Apostle? Or was this written by Joe heretic and only claiming to be a real Apostle?"

yes there are some questions about a few of the books that ended up being included in the final accepted canon, and yes it was the early church that gathered them into a single "book". However, the point of doing this was so that the Church itself had the correct foundation and doctrine to govern itself. To make sure that all future generations would have only one foundation. The foundation laid by Jesus and his Apostles. This is easily demonstrated by the actual content of these Apostolic writings, and by the use of Logic and Reason.

This is why the Church is subject to the canon of writings, and not the other way around.

(the issues of the roman catholic church, how they came to be and the development of their doctrine, etc is matter that needs its own complete discussion)

 

Excellent post