Only Using the non-Gospel books of the NT?

[modcath2019]

I was recently having a debate with a baptist friend of mine on salvation, sacraments, etc. Due to his belief in sola scriptura, I did my best to cater to that in my defense of reconciliation. The verse I presented to him was John 20:22-23 (though I now know that reconciliation is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21). His counterargument to that was that since the Gospels were not written for the Church but to Jews, Gentiles, and non-Christians, the only teachings of the Gospels that are relevant to Christians are those that are re-emphasized in the 23 other books of the New Testament. Needless to say my jaw dropped and did not know how to proceed further. Is there any validity to this statement? Thanks!

 

[Hodos]

No. There is no validity to this statement. Nor does he understand or apply the concept of Sola Scriptura based on your description. It wouldn’t be the first time someone was catechized poorly though.

 

[Timeflies2me]

I dont have my bible with me but John 6:66 is definitely an eye opener to those who arent in the church. Aint the whole bible for the church? I mean theres the typology aspect that comes to mind

EDIT: I ment the entirety of John 6

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you for that! That’s something I began to suspect some time ago, in online discussions with Protestants belonging to different churches. Those who formally call themselves Calvinists and certain others who don’t use that name but evidently subscribe to Calvinist theology, have always seemed to attach supremacy to the Epistles over the Gospels. I hesitated to accuse any of them outright of such a gross act of sacrilege, but now I feel free to start questioning them about it.

 

[Wesrock]

I do see an emphasis on the epistles from denominations like Baptists, but what your friend said about the Gospels is definitely not universal. However, I have seen it before. It was a person who said Christians shouldn’t pray the Our Father or draw any message or theology from it because it was for the Jews and before his Resurrection.

 

[Nihilo]

It’s called “Dispensationalism”.

 

[Guest1]

Look into when it is believed the gospels are written.

Don’t some believe John was written in 90 AD?

Weren’t Peter and Paul martyred around 60 AD?

Who was (If so written by him) Apostle John writing to?

 

[modcath2019]

Yeah, when that passage is explained properly it can really shake-up some protestants, but then they some way to twist it so that it says the opposite of what Catholics believe. So be it.

 

[modcath2019]

It’s funny you bring up Calvinism. The baptist I was talking to is a pretty good friend of mine and I love our debates because in the end I end up really growing in my scriptural knowledge and learning something new, and for all that we disagree on, we BOTH agree that Calvinism is incompatible with how the Bible presents salvation.

 

[modcath2019]

To me this position he took is nothing more than a method of shielding one’s self from Catholic doctrine. By utilizing a fallacious reasoning to determine doctrine, he effectively shields himself from argument with Catholics by blocking a large portion of where we get our doctrine.

 

[Hodos]

To me this position he took is nothing more than a method of shielding one’s self from Catholic doctrine. By utilizing a fallacious reasoning to determine doctrine, he effectively shields himself from argument with Catholics by blocking a large portion of where we get our doctrine.

It is just ludicrous. Not sure what point of doctrine you were arguing, or attempting to argue, but just because it is “catholic” doesn’t mean it is wrong (number 1), and the principle of Sola Scriptura means that your doctrine is derived from throughout the whole council of scripture rather than tradition. Maybe you were arguing something that was right, but maybe it was wrong. Either way, we should be able to defend what you were saying or refute it by the proper exegesis of scripture. Ruling scripture out rather than reading it in its context is a sign that this person does not in fact adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura. And if you actually read confessions written in the Reformation era you would see that the preponderance of Reformers believed in confession and absolution and the power of the Church to declare the forgiveness of sins. Once again, it comes down to someone who is most likely poorly taught. This phenomenon is no less prevalent in your own Church body as many posts in this forum would attest.

 

[po18guy]

Poor soul! Apparently, he is saved by Paul - even though Paul contradicted this!

I would guess that he never even glossed over Matthew 28:

“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

Sadly, many these days are simply making up their own private religion.

Again, poor soul!

 

[FossilResin]

His counterargument to that was that since the Gospels were not written for the Church but to Jews, Gentiles, and non-Christians, the only teachings of the Gospels that are relevant to Christians are those that are re-emphasized in the 23 other books of the New Testament. Needless to say my jaw dropped

Your jaw was right to drop. Our Lord Jesus’s LIFE is relayed to us in the beautiful heaven-sent gospels. The gospels are the most important words you will ever read in your entire life. Only the powers of Hell would persuade a soul that the holy gospels are anything less than the truth of the heart of Lord Jesus himself in their every shining word, from which the other indispensable books of the New Testament come. Never, ever, EVER turn against the gospels, for to do so is to turn against Jesus himself.

 

[FossilResin]

It was a person who said Christians shouldn’t pray the Our Father or draw any message or theology from it because it was for the Jews and before his Resurrection.

That is the handprint of Satan. Period.