Who wrote the Gospels from scripture alone?

[saved by grace]

=Tom Bryant;1682945]So why is it so important that we know who wrote a particular book of the Bible? That has nothing to do with establishing doctrine by the Bible alone.

If the apostle Matthew didn't write Matthew wouldn't that be important?

The biographies of Jesus, as well as the rest of Scripture, are inspired and inerrant no matter who wrote them.

That is the question. Where do the Gospels say they are the inspired and inerrant word of God? Where does the book of Hebrews or the book of Revelation or 1 and 2nd John say they are the inspired word of God?
Since they don't claim to be inspired, why do we consider them inspired?

 

[saved by grace]

=revmwc;1682940]Scripture doesn't confirm these letters Matthew, Mark and Luke.

That's right. They could be written by someone else. THey also don't claim to be inspired.

Now John can be with these verses and the entire book identifies him in several places.John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Yes I believe John wrote John.

Luke and Acts have the same author based on Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Luke 1: 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Nowhere does the author of "Luke" identify himself as Luke in either Acts or the Gospel according to "Luke". That title is added by the publisher.Both writings are anonymous.

Here is Mark:Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying24But the word of God grew and multiplied. 25And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

WHere does that say that Mark wrote a Gospel? Why isn't the Epistle of Barnabas in the bible. I have it and it is very good. I could even say it is inspired.

Here is Luke:Colosians 4: 13For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. 14Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. 15Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Again that just mentions his name. It doesn't say he wrote anything inspired.

Here are Mark and Luke:2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Lots of names are in the bible. It doesn't say Mark and Luke wrote inspired Gospels.

Hebrews is filled with scriptural teachings and sound doctrine

.
Hebrews doesn't claim to be inspired. Who decided that it was? The Epistle of Barnabas could be inspired for all we know.

Even if Matthew Mark and Luke didn't write these books trust what scripture says because it is the fianl authority

That is the Catholics point. You say it is "scripture" but you can't prove it from the books themselves because they don't claim to be inspired scripture.

and since we know John wrote his Gospel and many parts of John match up to things contained in Matthew, Mark and Luke we can trust them to be accurate

.
John doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God. You are assuming it is.

Since the same writer wrote Luke and Acts then Acts can be trusted.

Please show me the chapter and verse which says Luke wrote Acts. If we believe in scripture alone we have to be able to do that. Otherwise the bible is NOT the only authority.

 

[saved by grace]

=Martin Marprelate;1682946]Just a couple of things that might be helpful.
In 1Tim 1:18, Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture

.
Where? Paul doens't mention Luke's Gospel.

In 2Peter 3:15-16, Peter describes Paul's letters as Scripture.

OK

John's Gospel was written by a disciple whom Jesus loved who was one of the Apostles and an eye witness of all that he wrote about (John 21:20-24. cf. also 1John 1:1-4).

OK

Paul declares that his own writings are the word of God (1Cor 14:37).

OK. Where does Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1,2 and 3 John, Hebrews,Philemon,James,Jude,and Revelation make that claim?

Ultimately though, as the 1689 Confession tells us, it is the Holy Spirit that has convinced Christians all down the ages that the NT is the word of God.

Steve

As the Catholic will say it as the Holy Spirit who guided the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in AD 381 to declare the New Testament. The bible is silent. So far no one has given me any good answer to refute the Catholic claim.

 

[saved by grace]

God has always used the people of faith to produce the scriptures. In the case of the New Testament, it was the church.

Obviously the Church had God given authority to declare what is and isn't inspired scripture thus the bible cannot be our only authority. In Matthew 18:15 we are told to take it to the church not to the scriptures.

 

[saved by grace]

=preachinjesus;1682974]I think plenty of people have answered the question in the OP. Again I think you've been misled to believe that you have to "prove" these things through this manner.

Unless someone can show me where scipture says "There shall be 27 books in the New Testament and they are...." then the Catholic position is solid.

As others have pointed out there is enough internal reference to begin your journey. That said while Sola Scriptura properly teaches that the Bible is the sole authority for all matters concerning salvation and spiritual growth to make it be something it is not, i.e. a science or history book, is to corrupt the meaning of its text.

Can you please show me the chapter and verse where scripture states it is the "sole authority for all matters concerning salvation and spiritual growth"
THe bible never says that.

Don't speak of "outside authority" as being only one or two. Rather there are a host, dozens, of resources that help us understand what is written about within the text and how the text was formed. To use them is not a bad thing. Because of their unanimity in voice concerning the construction they speak well for what actually happened.

All I need is a verse that says the bible is the sole authority.THere isn't one. SCripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. That sounds pretty strong in support of the Church.

I'll sound like a broken record, but this is putting Scripture to a test that is both unnecessary and surpasses the limits of what Scripture's task actually is

.
How do you know that what you are reading is "scripture?" That is the question.

No theologian worth their salt is going to, in the history of the Church, accept your test for faithfulness here. And they shouldn't because it is applying a test for Scripture that Scripture isn't going to meet because of the nature of its composition and extent of its inspiration

.

You keep mentioning the word "scripture". Can you prove to me that Hebrews,Matthew,Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude, James, Revelation is inspired scripture?

As far as our salvation and spiritual growth are concerned, none of your questions are of a significance that could undermine the faith

.
If we can't prove from scripture "alone" what is inspired then we might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

For instance...let's say we can't "prove" (whatever that means) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark...so what? What is different about your salvation?

Because Mark doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God. What if it isn't?
In Col. 4:16 Paul says to read the letter from Laodicea. Why isn't that letter in the bible.? By what authority did the Catholic Church have to say it was a forgery?

Also in the early church Papias wrote about Mark being a student of Peter who composed the Gospel of Mark. Papias' work is dated to about AD 70 by Eusebius of Cesearea.

YOu are now going outside the bible. You are proving the Catholics position. The early Church says Mark, a student of Peter, wrote his Gospel. THe bible doesn't say that, the early Church makes that claim. They also said it is inspired. By what authority did the Catholic Church have to make that claim?

Recently Richard Bauckham has written an excellent text called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which spends considerable time on Papias and his work. It is one of the earliest, and best, authenticators for the nature of the Gospel from an extra-biblical context.

Then he is refuting scripture "alone".

Why are you leaving the Old Testament out? It doesn't matter who wrote it

.
Paul tells us it is inspired. He doesn't say that about all the New Testament writings.

This is an unreasonable demand on Scripture. The canonization process was a dynamic one that took about two (or three) centuries to formalize in a pre-modern historical context.

If it took 300 years to decided on what is and isn't inspired scripture that the bible cannot be our only authority. An extra-biblical source apparently also has authority.

I think you're questions are excellent ones, but the litmus test you are using to answer them is theologically and spiritual myopic. Your friend has you (it seems) convinced you have to answer these things through his method which has wrongly understood Christian doctrine.

THis has to be answered. If we can't infallibly say what is inspired then how can we say what true doctrine is.

There are immensely helpful resources in the first 200/300 years of the early church which actually answer all of your questions. They begin by pointing out internal mechanisms within Scripture then expand the picture to other teachings/writings which cohere with and develop these internal mechanisms. Check them out. Seriously, there are great things here.

You are saying the Catholic is right. THe Church gave us the bible.

 

[saved by grace]

=Jkdbuck76;1683048]Then ask your RCC friend what this verse means. Does it mean that the RCC church is the source of all christianity? Does it mean that the ekklesia is the source of truth? He might want it to say that. I bet your RCC friend has watched too much "The Journey Home".
The church is NOT the source of truth, rather it is the pillar and foundation. Christ Jesus is The Truth and His church lifts Him up high....like a pillar lifts something up. The pillar's job is to hold something up. Not only is the church to lift Him up in worship, the church is to hold Him up and present Him to a lost and dying world.

THe scripture is saying the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. That can't be ignored. Scripture also says we are to "take it to the church" in Matthew 18.

EDIT: Your RCC friend is asking you some loaded questions. It is like me asking you "have you stopped beating your mother yet?" I mean, you could turn the tables and ask him where in the Bible it says that Mary was sinless, where in the Bible it says the pope is infallible, and where in the Bible it says that Peter and his successors are the universal rulers of christiandom. Then what he has to admit is that there is not biblical evidence for these notions and that they came about much later.

I"ve been in discussion with this Catholic for over a year. He does "prove" all of the above from scripture. All I can say is his interpretation is wrong but he believes what he believes from scripture and Tradition which Paul mentions.

I appreciate everyones input but I am still at square one. I don't want to quote R.C. Sproul who said we have a "Fallible collection of infallible books". That makes no sense.

 

[John of Japan]

I have been challenged by a Catholic to prove several things from scripture alone

From scripture alone how do we know that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that Mark, Luke and John wrote their Gospels? Also how do we know that Luke wrote Acts and it is inspired scripture?

Tell him to get a Greek NT and look at the titles of each gospel. For example, Matthew's Greek title is
KATA MAQQAION meaning, "According to Matthew." To the best of my knowledge all manuscripts of Matthew 1 have this title. It is an extremely ancient title, and one would be hard put to prove it was not in the original manuscripts.

As for Acts, it was clearly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. (1) The writer of Acts refers to a previous document, a Gospel he wrote, in 1:1-2. (2) The style of the two books are the same, what with technical medical terms, polished Greek, etc. (I've translated both books.)

From Scripture alone who was Mark and Luke? They clearly were not apostles so why do we consider them as being inspired authors?

(1) There is nothing in Scripture that says that NT Scripture must have been written by apostles. That is human tradition. (2) Regardless, some scholars (esp. of missiology) consider both Mark and Luke as apostles, since they both travelled with apostles. Barnabas who travelled with Paul was specifically called one (Acts 14:14). There were many others called apostles in Scripture besides the 12. (3) The identities of Mark and Luke are not questioned by conservative scholars. Both men occur in various passages.

None of the 27 books claim to be the inspired word of God so why do we believe they are inspired from scripture alone.

Actually, this is not true. Peter referred to Paul's works as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

From scripture alone why is the book of Hebrews in the bible, who wrote it and why is it considered inspired?

The authorship of Hebrews is immaterial to it's inspiration.

Scripture never says how many books should be in the New Testament. From scripture alone why are there only 27 books and not more or less?

I can't answer these questions using scripture alone. How can I respond?

We--believers down through the ages--respond to Scripture as Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit in us, as taught in John 14:26. If your Catholic friend doesn't know the above books are Scripture, either he is not listening to the Holy Spirit within, or does not have the Holy Spirit within!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello Savedbygrace,
In 1Tim 5:18 (not 1:18- Sorry!), Paul quotes from Deut 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and calls them both Scripture.

Ultimately our assurance that the Bible is the word of God comes not from the Church, which can err like everybody else, but from the Holy Spirit.

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the people of God to gain a high and reverent estimation of the Holy Scriptures. We ma similarly be affected by the nature of the Scriptures- the heavenliness of the contents, the efficasy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God, the full disclosure it makes of the only way of man's salvation, together with many other incomparable excellencies and entire perfections. By all this evidence the Scripturemore than proves itself to be the Word of God.

Yet notwithstanding this, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth of Scripture and its divine authority, is from the imward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word on our hearts.

1689 Baptist Confession 1:5.

Steve

 

[convicted1]

Look, its not important who wrote the books of the bible, but rather, who inspired their writings. I could care less if Apostle John wrote the book of Peter, because if their writings aren't God breathed inspired they're useless to begin with. Sure, its good to know who wrote these books, but I do know that God overshadowed them with the Holy Ghost when they wrote them; and that weighs heavier than arguing over who wrote the four gospels.

 

[John of Japan]

Can you please show me the chapter and verse where scripture states it is the "sole authority for all matters concerning salvation and spiritual growth"
THe bible never says that.

I know this wasn't written to me, but I simply have to give my input. Forgive me if this is out of line.

First of all, we are Baptists, and many Baptist scholars believe we are a separate movement from the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, the sola Scriptura concept is not originally and not necessarily Baptist. We state it differently, and that's important.

Here is how the Baptist distinctive on the Bible is usually stated: "The Bible as sole rule of faith and practice." This way of stating it does not mean that we see no truth outside the Bible, it means all Christian living and all church matters must be based on the Bible. Therefore, for example, proving that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew can be discussed without the conclusion having to be based on Scripture--as long as it does not contradict Scripture. (Saying Paul did not write Galatians would be contradicting the Bible, which clearly says he did in Gal. 1:1.)

And yes, this Baptist distinctive is based squarely on the Bible. In the classic statement on the inspiration of Scripture, the purposes given for inspiration make it clear that both faith and practice must be based squarely on the Bible:

1 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[glfredrick]

So, none of the above can be proven from scripture alone? That is what he said. Are you saying it was the Catholic Church that told us who the authors are and that the 27 books are inspired?
If none of the above can be proven by scripture alone then that would mean that the Catholic Church had the authority to determine what is and isn't inspired. Is that what you are saying?
That would mean, as he believes, that scripture alone is not biblical.

Remember, the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today did not exist in the same form for its first 300+ years during the time when Christianity became a world religion. They rather revised history to encompass their new beliefs and declared Peter the first pope, and it all went downhill from there.

We know who wrote the books because those who were eyewitnesses were there to confirm the authorship. We also know who wrote every book except for questions on Hebrews and the 2-3 epistles of John.

Interestingly, every book of the NT was already cited (whether by reference by name or by quoted passage) in the first writings of the church fathers. We could re-construct the NT from their writings if it came to that.

 

[saved by grace]

=John of Japan;1683106]Tell him to get a Greek NT and look at the titles of each gospel. For example, Matthew's Greek title is
KATA MAQQAION meaning, "According to Matthew." To the best of my knowledge all manuscripts of Matthew 1 have this title. It is an extremely ancient title, and one would be hard put to prove it was not in the original manuscripts.

No scholar believes "According to Matthew" is in the originals. This was added as copies were made.

As for Acts, it was clearly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. (1) The writer of Acts refers to a previous document, a Gospel he wrote, in 1:1-2. (2) The style of the two books are the same, what with technical medical terms, polished Greek, etc. (I've translated both books.)

You can't say it was "clearly "written by the same author when both writings are anonymous.

(1) There is nothing in Scripture that says that NT Scripture must have been written by apostles. That is human tradition

.
True the bible is silent on who can write inspired scripture. By that measure the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul and the letter to the Laodecians could be in the bible but they aren't. Someone made that decision.

The authorship of Hebrews is immaterial to it's inspiration.

How do we infallibly know it is inspired when it never makes that claim?

We--believers down through the ages--respond to Scripture as Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit in us, as taught in John 14:26. If your Catholic friend doesn't know the above books are Scripture, either he is not listening to the Holy Spirit within, or does not have the Holy Spirit within!

My Catholic friend believes they are scripture because the Catholic Church tells him it is. My question is how do non-Catholics know the 27 books are inspired and inerrant scripture when the books themselves, with a couple of exceptions, never claim to be the inspired word of God? Seems to me we are accepting the authority of the early Church to make that decison for us and therefore there seems to be an authority in addition to the scriptures.

 

[saved by grace]

=Martin Marprelate;1683111]Hello Savedbygrace,
In 1Tim 5:18 (not 1:18- Sorry!), Paul quotes from Deut 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and calls them both Scripture.

I have no problem with that.

Ultimately our assurance that the Bible is the word of God comes not from the Church, which can err like everybody else, but from the Holy Spirit.
Steve

I made that point with my Catholic friend and it really doesn't hold water. There is no use in denying it. Historical writings show that what we regard as scripture was in dispute in the year 350. THere was no bible as we know it until AD 381 when the Bishops of the Catholic CHurch met in Rome and voted on the Canon that we have today.

If the Church can "err like everybody else" than we have no certainity that what we call scripture is really scripture.

 

[saved by grace]

=convicted1;1683112]Look, its not important who wrote the books of the bible, but rather, who inspired their writings. I could care less if Apostle John wrote the book of Peter, because if their writings aren't God breathed inspired they're useless to begin with

.
That argument isn't going to win over my Catholic friend. Hebrews,Matthew, Mark, Acts, Jude, James, Revelation never claim to be the inspired and inerrant word of God. If they don't claim to be inspired, why do we consider them inspired?

 

[saved by grace]

=John of Japan;1683125]I know this wasn't written to me, but I simply have to give my input. Forgive me if this is out of line.

First of all, we are Baptists, and many Baptist scholars believe we are a separate movement from the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, the sola Scriptura concept is not originally and not necessarily Baptist. We state it differently, and that's important.

Here is how the Baptist distinctive on the Bible is usually stated: "The Bible as sole rule of faith and practice."

I would love to tell my Catholic friend that the bible is our "sole rule of faith and practice" but he will ask where the bible states that.

This way of stating it does not mean that we see no truth outside the Bible, it means all Christian living and all church matters must be based on the Bible.

This doesn't work in my argument. The Catholic will simply ask "what is the bible according to the bible?". THe bible doesn't say "There shall be 27 books and they are....."

Therefore, for example, proving that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew can be discussed without the conclusion having to be based on Scripture--as long as it does not contradict Scripture. (Saying Paul did not write Galatians would be contradicting the Bible, which clearly says he did in Gal. 1:1.)

We're back to square one. First we have to infallibly know that what we are reading is inspired scripture and the bible doesn't tell us.

And yes, this Baptist distinctive is based squarely on the Bible. In the classic statement on the inspiration of Scripture, the purposes given for inspiration make it clear that both faith and practice must be based squarely on the Bible:

1 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

1 Tim 3:16 doesn't tell us what is and what isn't inspired. If Paul would have listed the 27 books it would be an open and shut case but he doesn't. I can't deny the historical fact that there was no recognized Canon of Scripture until AD 381.

 

[saved by grace]

=glfredrick;1683142]Remember, the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today did not exist in the same form for its first 300+ years during the time when Christianity became a world religion. They rather revised history to encompass their new beliefs and declared Peter the first pope, and it all went downhill from there.

My Catholic friend makes very sound historical and biblcal arguments that the New Testmant Church is the Catholic Church of today but that is beside the point. Even it it isn't the same Church, there was a Church that existed in the second, third and fourth century that made the decision on what our Canon of Scripture is.

We know who wrote the books because those who were eyewitnesses were there to confirm the authorship. We also know who wrote every book except for questions on Hebrews and the 2-3 epistles of John.

THen show me from the book of Matthew that he was the author. The book is written in the third person. Look at the list of the apostles in Matthew 10. Why doesn't the author say "and then I Matthew the the tax collector was chosen". He doesn't. It sounds as if someone else is writting the book. Same with Mark and Acts and First, Second and Third John and others.

Interestingly, every book of the NT was already cited (whether by reference by name or by quoted passage) in the first writings of the church fathers. We could re-construct the NT from their writings if it came to that.

That's my problem, He quotes from the Church Fathers. They are the ones who declare what is inspired and what isn't and they make the decision as to who the authors are and they make the decision that there should only be 27 books even though there were over 200 books that some thought to be the inspired word of God.

 

[preachinjesus]

I'm just flabbergasted that you're sticking to this position. There are any number of excellent posts in the conversation that seek to aid you in understanding a coherent, theological position on inspiration and canonicity. I encourage you to read through them again.

So, why does it matter to you that your Catholic friend is wrong and you're right?

 

[saved by grace]

=preachinjesus;1683225]I'm just flabbergasted that you're sticking to this position. There are any number of excellent posts in the conversation that seek to aid you in understanding a coherent, theological position on inspiration and canonicity. I encourage you to read through them again.

I truly appreciate everyones input but I find the answers given to be lacking. I have been taught that all we need is the bible yet my Catholic friend is convincing me that is false. Without the early Church we wouln't even have a bible. They, whoever they were, determined what is and isn't inspired. Yes I believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit to make that decision but they didn't use scripture alone to make that decision.

So, why does it matter to you that your Catholic friend is wrong and you're right?

It matters greatly because because I am becoming convinced that he is right and I am wrong. His arguments on everything from justification to what the Church, according to scripture, actually is goes against what I have been taught the Church is.
I am beginning to believe that todays Catholic Church is in fact the ancient Church found in the Acts of the Apostles and the early Church Fathers were Catholic Bishops and are no different that today's Catholic Bishops.
He has planted doubt into what I have always believed. What he says is beginning to make sense.

 

[Aaron]

From the Bible alone, you can show your friend that the Scriptures are authored by the Holy Spirit, which is the only authorship that matters. But using the Scriptures as the sole witness for their own inspiration is to employ the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, or that of begging the question.

As explained before, Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that the Scriptures are the sole witness of certain things. Quite the contrary. If one's own testimony of himself is the only existing testimony, then that testimony is to be rejected as untrue. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures are the last word in matters of doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness.

Tradition is useful and profitable, and strong, reliable evidence of many things, but it isn't always evidence of righteousness, and it certainly isn't the last word.

You misunderstood Sola Scriptura, so your friend has you there, and you need to admit defeat in that respect. However, the fact that tradition can be a reliable witness does not mean that he can jump to the conclusion that tradition is the source of truth or inspiration, or has any power over one's conscience, which is where he wants to go.

 

[Aaron]

. . . and now, seeing your last post, that seems to be where you want to go too. I can't believe I fell for this.