The Scriptures The Means Of Propogating The Gospel

It is asserted by some, namely Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, modernists, and most lately some "Catholic Baptists" that the gospel of Christ was transmitted orally in the early years of Christianity and that the Scriptures were not generally circulated or acknowledged until decades, if not centuries, after the apostles.

In evidence against this untenable thoery I present the following statement of Paul:

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen."

From this statement we see that it is "by the scriptures of the prophets" that the gospel of Christ was made known to all nations, according to God's commandment. That the "scriptures" in this statement cannot be confined to the Old Testament Scriptures is proven by the fact that Paul said the "mystery" of the gospel was "kept secret since the world began."

That mystery, he explains in Ephesians, was the coming together of Jew and Gentile in the New Testament church. It was not revealed to the Old Testament prophets, but to the New Testament prophets. As Paul said in Ephesians,

"(....Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ). Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel."

My point is this: that it was through the writings of the New Testament prophets that the gospel mystery was being revealed even while Paul was alive. It was not the writings of Paul only, for he speaks of the plurality of apostles and prophets through whose "scriptures" - which is to say writings - the mystery was made known.

Therefore the whole notion that the New Testament Scriptures were either not written or not generally circulated and not recoginzed as authentic till decades or centuries after the apostles is wholly at odds with the plain statement of Paul.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Danny,

Does the phrase "apostles and prophets" in the Ephesians passage idicate New Testament apostles and prophets? If so (and it obviously does), why would anyone think the Romans passage, which says essential the same thing, does not also refer to the New Testament prophets, other than a preconceived theory that the New Testament Scriptures were a post-apostolic production?

Mark Osgatharp

 

DCK,

Who said that "oral preaching never happened." Of course there was oral transmission of the gospel. For that matter, the gospel is still transmitted orally.

But the authoritative record through which the gospel was preserved had to be either the apostles and other New Testament prophets themselves or their writings (Scriptures).

Remember, the apostles and prophets confirmed their oral preaching through super-natural deeds. It was on this basis that their preaching and writings were accepted as Scripture. Once they were dead the only authority that remained was the Scriptures themselves.

And the passage I cited explicitly says that is was "by the scriptures of the prophets" that the New Testament mystery was made known "to all nations." That does not exclude oral preaching. It asserts that the basis of the preaching was the written word.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Earlier this year I heard a Lutheran pastor argue in favor of the Gospel of Thomas. And Luther himself, as I understand, was doubtful about James and Revelation. And then there is the claim that the Paulicians only accepted the writings of Paul.

Not to mention the fact that the Council of Carthage also declared the books of Tobit, Judith, the Maccabees and and couple of extra books of Solomon to be part of the Old Testament. I even know of a few Baptists who think that the book of Enoch should be thrown in there.

I guess the Council of Carthage didn't settle near as much as you claim it did.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I don't dodge this fact any more than I dodge the fact that there have been Baptists all down through the ages who believed erroneous doctrines. There were people in the seven churches of Asia who held to heresies that Jesus Christ said He hated. Right now there are Baptists who don't believe any of the Bible was inspired. So what does that prove?

Show me where the 27 book canon was "accepted universaly among the churches" after Carthage. The fact is that the New Testament canon was challenged after the council of Carthage and still is challenged.

And I still find it astonishingly and ridiculously comical that you think the Council of Carthage authoritatively nailed down the New Testament canon while they were dead wrong on the Old. Now that is a hoot.....

Mark Osgatharp

 

Amen!