Why are the Epistles in Scripture?

[mathematoons]

I had a conversation with a non-Catholic who only accepted the Gospels as divinely inspired. Mostly, he objected to the teachings on gender and sexuality in the Epistles and the “angry Old Testament God.” He claimed that these had nothing to do with Jesus. I quoted some teachings of Jesus on these subjects that contradicted his claims, but it brings up some questions.

Why are the Epistles in Scripture? I know the Catholic Church put the Bible together, but do all logical chains leading from Jesus to the Epistles have the Catholic Church as a link?

The reason I’m asking is because someday, I’d like to write a book about the teachings of Jesus, using a C.S. Lewis-like “mere Christianity” approach, so that anything specifically Catholic is beyond the scope of the book.

 

[fred_conty]

I had a conversation with a non-Catholic who only accepted the Gospels as divinely inspired. Mostly, he objected to the teachings on gender and sexuality in the Epistles and the “angry Old Testament God.” He claimed that these had nothing to do with Jesus. I quoted some teachings of Jesus on these subjects that contradicted his claims, but it brings up some questions.

Why are the Epistles in Scripture? I know the Catholic Church put the Bible together, but do all logical chains leading from Jesus to the Epistles have the Catholic Church as a link?

The reason I’m asking is because someday, I’d like to write a book about the teachings of Jesus, using a C.S. Lewis-like “mere Christianity” approach, so that anything specifically Catholic is beyond the scope of the book.

There are several criteria that early scholars in the church used to identify what books
or writtings belonged to the inspired word of God. We have to remember that the Bible is not one book but many written by a number of inspired human authors. Each book had to be considered in itself whether it was divinely inspired. The following is the criteria.

1. It was used in the liturgy of the early church. That is, it was read as part of the liturgy, a letter or gospel.
2. There was nothing in the book that was contrary to the teaching of the early church.
3. Many of the clergy and christians considered and thought of the book as divinely inspired and from God.
4. There was nothing in it that was ridiculous or sounded like nonsense or passages that might offend one’s religous sensabilies.
5. The book was widely used in all the local churches.

And of course, the use prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to ascertain if the book should be selected.

Just a thought.

 

[lutherlic]

I had a conversation with a non-Catholic who only accepted the Gospels as divinely inspired. Mostly, he objected to the teachings on gender and sexuality in the Epistles and the “angry Old Testament God.” He claimed that these had nothing to do with Jesus. I quoted some teachings of Jesus on these subjects that contradicted his claims, but it brings up some questions.

Why are the Epistles in Scripture? I know the Catholic Church put the Bible together, but do all logical chains leading from Jesus to the Epistles have the Catholic Church as a link?

The reason I’m asking is because someday, I’d like to write a book about the teachings of Jesus, using a C.S. Lewis-like “mere Christianity” approach, so that anything specifically Catholic is beyond the scope of the book.

At the end of the day, for me, because Holy Mother Church said they are. I have 100% confidence in that.

On CS Lewis, I like him (a lot), but he never got to the point of understanding the difference between schismatic communities and the Church founded by Christ. His “many rooms” analogy would be best seen as nearby tents, separated from the tabernacle.

“Specifically Catholic” is the Christian Church in its fullness, without error.

 

[puzzleannie]

I had a conversation with a non-Catholic who only accepted the Gospels as divinely inspired.

upon what authority does he base his judgment?

 

[jcrichton]

I had a conversation with a non-Catholic who only accepted the Gospels as divinely inspired. Mostly, he objected to the teachings on gender and sexuality in the Epistles and the “angry Old Testament God.” He claimed that these had nothing to do with Jesus. I quoted some teachings of Jesus on these subjects that contradicted his claims, but it brings up some questions.

Why are the Epistles in Scripture? I know the Catholic Church put the Bible together, but do all logical chains leading from Jesus to the Epistles have the Catholic Church as a link?

The reason I’m asking is because someday, I’d like to write a book about the teachings of Jesus, using a C.S. Lewis-like “mere Christianity” approach, so that anything specifically Catholic is beyond the scope of the book.

…then, I am afraid, you are in the wrong place… you should join your non-Catholic person on that quest… to be Christian does not mean I can get to choose how I accept Christ; being Christian means that I accept Christ as He is Revealed… just to give you an example: you cite a person who has determined that he is the authority about God–show me in the Gospel where it is taught that man determines how God is supposed to be; you want to write about Christ from a Christian or mere human perspective… how can avoid the Church that Christ Founded? …the only way is hollowood’s way: separate Truth and ignore it and teach whim and nonsense as a new liberating spirituality where every person is god… did you catch C. S. Lewis claiming to be Christ’s prophet or denying Christ’s Church?

We can believe anything or nothing… that’s our God given right; but we cannot claim Christ according to our own determined values!

Live long and prosper!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mathematoons]

…then, I am afraid, you are in the wrong place… you should join your non-Catholic person on that quest… to be Christian does not mean I can get to choose how I accept Christ; being Christian means that I accept Christ as He is Revealed… just to give you an example: you cite a person who has determined that he is the authority about God–show me in the Gospel where it is taught that man determines how God is supposed to be; you want to write about Christ from a Christian or mere human perspective… how can avoid the Church that Christ Founded? …the only way is hollowood’s way: separate Truth and ignore it and teach whim and nonsense as a new liberating spirituality where every person is god… did you catch C. S. Lewis claiming to be Christ’s prophet or denying Christ’s Church?

Don’t get me wrong, I fully accept the authority of the Church; I fully agree that the Church was set up by Jesus. But I can’t limit my audience to those who agree with me on that. In fact, I want to show just how close His teachings were to Catholic doctrine without explicitly saying so.

The book idea came from my mom, who was telling me about the difficulty she was having with the Bible. She said she wished someone would just write a simple book about what Jesus taught. There are already a ton of books arguing for the Catholic faith, but nothing like what she’s describing, as far as I can tell, so I want to write it.

[sarcasm]But I’m so glad I have you to tell me that writing such a book would be tantamount to becoming a Protestant. Who needs the Pope when I have you?[/sarcasm]

Seriously, I just asked a simple question about the Epistles. Can I have it answered without being called a heretic? I can’t criticize “liberal Catholicism” (an oxymoron) on this board without someone calling me judgmental, but propose a book that can reach Protestants as well as Catholics (Peter Kreeft has also used that strategy btw) and suddenly you’re not Catholic anymore.

Give me a break.

 

[runningdude]

[sarcasm]But I’m so glad I have you to tell me that writing such a book would be tantamount to becoming a Protestant. Who needs the Pope when I have you?[/sarcasm]

Seriously, I just asked a simple question about the Epistles. Can I have it answered without being called a heretic? I can’t criticize “liberal Catholicism” (an oxymoron) on this board without someone calling me judgmental, but propose a book that can reach Protestants as well as Catholics (Peter Kreeft has also used that strategy btw) and suddenly you’re not Catholic anymore.

Give me a break.

Think of it as “practice vetting” - as an author, you’ll be getting tons of feedback, positive and negative (some vicious ). Got to develop a thick skin and clear language to survive!

 

[COPLAND_3]

First of all Paul was chosen by Christ to be an Apostle, that in itself is enough to make any follower of Christ to look to Paul for the teachings of Christ since Jesus did not leave us anything written by his own hand. If that person only accepts the Gospels than that person is accepting writings from two Apostles, and two men (Mark and Luke) who were not at the level of Apostolic Authority as Paul.

Next thing we need to look at is Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture” in one of his letters. Peter, who was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven by Jesus, and he called Paul’s letters Scripture, so that is enough to make any follower of Christ look to Paul’s letters as something that will help lead us to the teachings of Christ.

All the books of the Bible have a purpose that leads us to Christ. All the OT books in their own way point to Christ, whether by prophecy, or by providing the historical links that show his genelogical roots, or by showing God’s dealings with mankind in history that showed the need for a Savior to come.

The NT books all have a purpose as well. The Gospels proclaim the coming of that expected Savior and His establishing of a Church. The Acts shows the birth of that Church and its beginnings in human history. The Epistles teaches how the Gospel should be lived out. And the book of Revelation teaches us that despite all the evil that is in the world, and that evil will get worse, Christ is going to come again and put an end to all evil one and for all.

 

[mathematoons]

First of all Paul was chosen by Christ to be an Apostle, that in itself is enough to make any follower of Christ to look to Paul for the teachings of Christ since Jesus did not leave us anything written by his own hand. If that person only accepts the Gospels than that person is accepting writings from two Apostles, and two men (Mark and Luke) who were not at the level of Apostolic Authority as Paul.

Next thing we need to look at is Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture” in one of his letters. Peter, who was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven by Jesus, and he called Paul’s letters Scripture, so that is enough to make any follower of Christ look to Paul’s letters as something that will help lead us to the teachings of Christ.

Wow, so Protestants can’t even accept the Epistles as Scripture without accepting Peter’s authority!

Guess that answers my question.

All the books of the Bible have a purpose that leads us to Christ. All the OT books in their own way point to Christ, whether by prophecy, or by providing the historical links that show his genelogical roots, or by showing God’s dealings with mankind in history that showed the need for a Savior to come.

The NT books all have a purpose as well. The Gospels proclaim the coming of that expected Savior and His establishing of a Church. The Acts shows the birth of that Church and its beginnings in human history. The Epistles teaches how the Gospel should be lived out. And the book of Revelation teaches us that despite all the evil that is in the world, and that evil will get worse, Christ is going to come again and put an end to all evil one and for all.

This is also very helpful Thank you.

Think of it as “practice vetting” - as an author, you’ll be getting tons of feedback, positive and negative (some vicious ). Got to develop a thick skin and clear language to survive!

Makes sense.

 

[bogeydogg]

The Epistles are the inspired writings of the Apostles sent by Christ and first to receive the Holy Spirit. Their writing on equal footing with the Law, Prophets and Wisdom writings of the OT and the authority in them was inherent from the second they were penned. The person who only wants to have the Gospels and have nothing to do with the “angry god” is committing one of the oldest heresies and needs to read about Marcion. This is so far from new it was the source of the first council and the reason why the bishops declared what was canon in the first place. Your friend really needs to study history.

God Bless

 

[COPLAND_3]

Wow, so Protestants can’t even accept the Epistles as Scripture without accepting Peter’s authority!

Many Protestants have a firm grip on accepting the Bible as Sacred Scripture, but many of them have not given much thought to how it was put together and the Catholic Church’s envolvement in the canonization of the books of the Bible. Once someone realizes that it took Apostolic Authority to determine what books were to be in the Bible, then it becomes much easier to trust in the choices made on each book that was canonized. Jesus did not pass out Bibles and declare that the Bible was our only teaching authority. But He chose 12 Apostles to be the leaders of His Catholic Church, and they appointed leaders to carry on the ministry to a Church that was to spread all over the world. The New Testament is a product of the proclamation of the Good News, as was an inspired interpretation of it which we call Tradition. And the Catholic Church is Christ’s organization that defends and preserves our One Faith that has never changed, but has only developed in order to apply the Gospel to the lives of every generation and their own challenges they face.

I have found that those who pick and choose parts of the faith while rejecting others, usually have an agenda whether its political, social, being misguided, bad Catholic experience, etc.

As to your original post, I had a boss who grew up Catholic but was not real committed. He was very intellegent, but he too held the same position of only accepting the Gospels. He basically gave the same reasons, and he mentioned reading a book that inspired him to hold that position (which was very anti-Paul). I basically gave him the same answer I gave in my post before, and he did not have an answer, nor did he seem equipt to take it any further. My opinion is that he was not seeking religious Truth, only a cheap reason to not have a deep authentic religious commitment that would demand a real life change.

 

[patrick457]

The Epistles are the inspired writings of the Apostles sent by Christ and first to receive the Holy Spirit. Their writing on equal footing with the Law, Prophets and Wisdom writings of the OT and the authority in them was inherent from the second they were penned. The person who only wants to have the Gospels and have nothing to do with the “angry god” is committing one of the oldest heresies and needs to read about Marcion. This is so far from new it was the source of the first council and the reason why the bishops declared what was canon in the first place. Your friend really needs to study history.

God Bless

And the ironic thing is, Marcion accepted Paul as really being the only one who transmitted the teachings of Jesus faithfully and so held ten of his letters to be authoritative.

 

[thistle]

I had a conversation with a non-Catholic who only accepted the Gospels as divinely inspired. Mostly, he objected to the teachings on gender and sexuality in the Epistles and the “angry Old Testament God.” He claimed that these had nothing to do with Jesus. I quoted some teachings of Jesus on these subjects that contradicted his claims, but it brings up some questions.

Why are the Epistles in Scripture? I know the Catholic Church put the Bible together, but do all logical chains leading from Jesus to the Epistles have the Catholic Church as a link?

The reason I’m asking is because someday, I’d like to write a book about the teachings of Jesus, using a C.S. Lewis-like “mere Christianity” approach, so that anything specifically Catholic is beyond the scope of the book.

I’m curious. What type of non-Catholic is he because I am not aware of any of the Protestant churches that deny the OT, and the NT except for the 4 Gospels. It sounds like he’s in some weird cult.

 

[jcrichton]

Don’t get me wrong, I fully accept the authority of the Church; I fully agree that the Church was set up by Jesus. But I can’t limit my audience to those who agree with me on that. In fact, I want to show just how close His teachings were to Catholic doctrine without explicitly saying so.

The book idea came from my mom, who was telling me about the difficulty she was having with the Bible. She said she wished someone would just write a simple book about what Jesus taught. There are already a ton of books arguing for the Catholic faith, but nothing like what she’s describing, as far as I can tell, so I want to write it.

[sarcasm]But I’m so glad I have you to tell me that writing such a book would be tantamount to becoming a Protestant. Who needs the Pope when I have you?[/sarcasm]

Seriously, I just asked a simple question about the Epistles. Can I have it answered without being called a heretic? I can’t criticize “liberal Catholicism” (an oxymoron) on this board without someone calling me judgmental, but propose a book that can reach Protestants as well as Catholics (Peter Kreeft has also used that strategy btw) and suddenly you’re not Catholic anymore.

Give me a break.

…I may have missed your point… I apologize for that… but you have to agree that your sounding board was tantamount to heresy (my friend says only the Gospels…); once the red flag went up…

…and no, not the Pope… just a twocenter…

…please, do not let this misunderstanding disuade you from your endeavor.

God Bless!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I’m curious. What type of non-Catholic is he because I am not aware of any of the Protestant churches that deny the OT, and the NT except for the 4 Gospels. It sounds like he’s in some weird cult.

I think they’re called “Red Letter Christians”, not entirely sure.

 

[bogeydogg]

I’m curious. What type of non-Catholic is he because I am not aware of any of the Protestant churches that deny the OT, and the NT except for the 4 Gospels. It sounds like he’s in some weird cult.

I think there are plenty of church groups that would not teach such a doctrine explicitly but do teach it implicitly especially when they treat the Law and the OT in general as something of an antiquated embarrassment to the NT.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

For example I have friends who will say things about the Law and personal piety and righteous conduct (which we all need more of especially myself) such as “Well yeah but that’s the Law and we live under grace today”

God Bless

 

[melekali]

I had a conversation with a non-Catholic who only accepted the Gospels as divinely inspired. Mostly, he objected to the teachings on gender and sexuality in the Epistles and the “angry Old Testament God.” He claimed that these had nothing to do with Jesus. I quoted some teachings of Jesus on these subjects that contradicted his claims, but it brings up some questions.

Why are the Epistles in Scripture? I know the Catholic Church put the Bible together, but do all logical chains leading from Jesus to the Epistles have the Catholic Church as a link?

The reason I’m asking is because someday, I’d like to write a book about the teachings of Jesus, using a C.S. Lewis-like “mere Christianity” approach, so that anything specifically Catholic is beyond the scope of the book.

I like your Augustine quote. Classic. Not much I can add, seems this discussion has yielded what you needed. God bless.

 

[jcrichton]

I think there are plenty of church groups that would not teach such a doctrine explicitly but do teach it implicitly especially when they treat the Law and the OT in general as something of an antiquated embarrassment to the NT.

God Bless

I concur… that’s why there are so many confused teachings claiming that they are Christian (’…that hateful God of the Old Testament…’ or ‘…don’t read the Old Testament because…’ or ‘…why did God allow all those people to perish if…’); interestingly enough, they tend to focus only in the New Testament Writings… almost exclusively (well that and on their favorite scholars’ writings)…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

For example I have friends who will say things about the Law and personal piety and righteous conduct (which we all need more of especially myself) such as “Well yeah but that’s the Law and we live under grace today”

God Bless

…which on the surface seems quite correct… problem is that when St. Peter spoke about the Sacred Scriptures and St. Paul’s Writings also as Inspired he did not a) inferred that the Old Testament Scriptures were null and void due to the new Covenant and b) he did not promote the new Covenant Writings as an excuse to ignore/circumvent the Ten Commandments!

Maran atha!

Angel