Request for resources - The four Gospel only heresy

Status
Not open for further replies.

lightspear

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello all,

Recently I came across an interesting web site advocating a view that Jesus' words are the only viable scripture (Jesus' words Only - Jesus' words as the sole inspired portion of the New Testament Scripture.). The viewpoint holds that there are many conflicts between the writings of the Apostles and Christ's words. Though the site primarily focuses on the Apostle Paul. After a little searching I have found a few more sites advocating this same view. This would not normally concern me, you can find any obscure crazy belief on the web, but I recently encountered this viewpoint being espoused by a friend. I was also concerned with the amount of views this site was getting, and the amount of similar sites. But what concerned me the most was the seeming lack of response by those who believe the truth. I am working on a response to post to my blog and was wondering: does anyone here know of good rebuttals for this heresy? The closest I could find was on carm.com. The author lays out the scripture that clearly illustrates Pauls unity with Christs teachings. This article does not deal with this specific heresy. It deals with the Muslim tactic of dividing Christ teachings from Pauls.

If anyone knows of some good resources on this topic let me know!

Thanks,
 
This is usually a liberal position--see "Red letter Christians." But since Jesus talked a lot more about hell than Paul or even John, they tend to focus just on the Sermon on the Mount and usually just the Beatitudes. One wouldn't want to dwell too much on plucking out eyes and cutting off hands, and "hating" our family to follow Jesus, now would we?

With regard to the alleged contradictions, someone should ask them upon what human authority the Gospels rests? Who wrote them? If the apostles and their associates are so unreliable, then how can we be sure we have the actual words of Jesus to begin with?

Others who may take this view are legalists who despise "Paul's gospel of grace" and those who don't like the "chauvinistic" things Paul writes about women, with the latter often being the same folks in my first paragraph. This site you've linked looks like it is more on the legalistic side (see the page on seventh-day sabbath keeping and the statement of faith for starters) but he also points the reader to a good many liberals (Bultmann), a "conservative Unitarian" and other assorted heretics and heterodox material in an attempt to support his argument.
 
Then they have to get rid of the four gospels, as well-- Jesus didn't speak in Greek. Also, interesting you trust the Apostle John to write a gospel, but discard his theological in his epistles.
 
Sadly, if you refuse to see the Old and New Testaments as an integrated whole, the scriptures can be cut up (and cut out) any which way you please. No extra references are needed to refute this one -- know the scriptures, their internal consistency and what they say about themselves.
 
Red Letter folks are in an odd position, given that they affirm the Red Letters by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to actually quote the Lord, but deny anything else they may have written, e.g., Acts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top