Skip to comments.The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, Or To Place Anything on Record Until.........
Posted on 12/07/2010 10:58:00 AM PST by marshmallow
The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
May I suggest, as especially appropriate for this season, Athanasius' On the Incarnation.
I am also curious as to what sort of comments, if any, your posting of the Fathers' writings may attract. The sola scriptura crowd may not be amused.
Book III of "Against the Heresies" is particularly relevant to many of this forum's favorite points of disputation.
It is my understanding that there are common elements in Mark, Matthew and Luke that are thought to be attributable to a common text. I think the text is referred to as “Q”, which would have been preparred during or immediately after Christ’s death
These men do not count in determining what Christians are called to believe. They lived prior to the 16th century and as such were of inferior intellect and understanding. The Gospel and other writings of the NT were not fully appreciated and made plain until the Reformers gave the Bible to the common folk. Thereby erasing a millenium of superstitious Romanism and freeing them from the slavery of idolatry.
Sheesh, how many times do you gotta be told this????
I thought the "Q" tradition was supposed to be things common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark, as Mark is viewed as a source for both Matthew and Luke but there are additional items in both that do not appear in Mark.
You are right
That is a common theory. But I find it interesting that none of the second and third century Church fathers mention this Q gospel but all quote extensively from the cannonical Gospels. I figured they would have heard of this Q text and mentioned it if it existed.
I've read the Q test supposedly containst those passages that a common to all three synoptic Gospels and there is supposedly yet another text which contains the passages which are common only to Matthew and Luke. Again, if these other texts existed I would expected to see them mentioned and quoted by the earliest Church fathers.
Theories about why it did not survive long enough to be known by the early fathers could only be more speculative than threories about its existance, I suppose. It seems reasonable to think that if such a thing existed, and was recognized as accurate sayings of Jesus, it would have been treasured at least as much as Paul's letters.
Absolutely. If it existed at the time Luke wrote his Gospel in the mid 60's AD (or much later according to some scholars) it is hard to believe all memory of it would have disappeared in such a tight knit community just 50-70 years later when Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and possibly Iraneus were writing their works. Very hard to believe.
The Upper Room.
**Here commenceth a daily posting of the writings of the early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church, beginning with St. Irenaeus and his tome Against Heresies.**
What a wealth you will have for us!
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.