Posted on 01/22/2008 9:57:30 PM PST by ROTB
I have a Christian brother who keeps insisting that the Gospels are more authoritative than the Epistles of Paul, John, and Peter.
I know this is an error because of 2 Peter 3:16:
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16
Peter, who walked with Jesus, is calling Paul's writings scripture.
This couldn't be the first time this error has been mentioned in the Christian era. But I don't know what it's called, and I'm hoping one of you can save me the trouble of digging for it.
Your friend is saying the 4 Gospels are the ONLY inspired Word of God?
***
He simply favors the authority of the Gospels over the Epistles.
Christ was dead? but still spoke???
I think we may be having a definition or terminology problem here.
This was after He had risen from the dead, and ascended to the Father in Heaven.
As far as I can tell, He has been alive ever since. No?
I use the bible...Which book do you use??? Or, maybe you don't use a book...
You might try this as a counterargument.
1. Luke wrote one of the Gospels your friend esteems so much.
2. Luke also wrote Acts, which after all is also an Epistle (i.e., a letter) to Theophilus.
3. Acts focuses primarily on Paul's conversion and ministry.
4. Thus, God used a Gospel writer to introduce and authenticate the chief writer of the Epistles. He thereby transitions us from history (the Gospels) to guidance (the Epistles), indicating both are important.
Consider the different purposes of Gospels and Epistles. In broad terms, one might describe the Gospels as historical and persuasive, meant to convince readers of the veracity of Christ's life, birth, and resurrection. The Epistles' purpose, again speaking broadly, is instructional and exhortative, to guide Christians in their faith-walk.
Perhaps your friend prefers concrete stories about actual events to more abstract arguments. Indeed, perhaps he struggles still with the basic message of the Gospel! It is true that without the Gospels the Epistles are empty. It is also true that without the Epistles (ignoring for a moment, if one can , the work of the Holy Spirit) Christians remain spiritual babies.
Clearly, we are to start with the Gospels, but just as clearly we also need the Epistles.
What are your references to support what you are asserting?
Yes, Christ was alive then. Remember that Acts 1 records Jesus’ ascension into Heaven. That took place before Paul’s conversion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.