Williemac sez:
Why? Just because
you are convinced? Paul did not write his letters in light of the gospels. He wrote them in light of what was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and with his vast knowledge of what we call the old testament.
Paul had to receive the Gospel message from the Holy Spirit all right, no argument there. But by what means did the Holy Spirit use for Paul to receive it? Or did God just shoot him in the head with a truth bullet?
The other epistles in the new testament are no different. The authors did not collectively have access to anything remotely what we now call the gospels.
If you mean the written transmission of the word of God, you are correct. The authors had the full gospel message passed on to them. Then they wrote it down. The full gospel message had to be received. It was entrusted from the Apostles to Paul directly or indirectly. The Apostles received the Gospel message from the lips of Christ. No one can receive anything unless someone else possesses
it. Paul could not have been instantly filled with knowledge because he was blind all the way to Damascus.
In our case, it is more accurate to say that scripture needs to be understood in light of scripture.
What doctrines like the "perspicuity of Scripture" or "scripture understands scripture" really means is, "Scripture means what I take it to mean – no more, no less. The easy-to-understand parts are the parts that agree with what I think. The hard-to-understand parts are the parts that
a) talk about unimportant stuff or
B ) must be subordinated to what I understand."
It's a useful fiction elevated to the level of Revealed Teaching so that self-appointed, one-man Magisteria can say, "Ignorant and unstable people may twist Scripture, but I am safe from all that so I understand perfectly what Scripture means. And when the Catholic Church disagrees with me, that's because the ignorant and unstable Church is disagreeing with me, who is not ignorant or unstable."
In short, it's the rationale for erecting the sundry semi-permeable membranes of the sundry Protestantisms. Not surprisingly, then, the Bible teacher who claims that his special take on Scripture "disproves" the Church will react to criticisms of the absurd doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture" with the claim that it is an attack on God Himself. He has to say that, or his whole shell game comes apart. He has to say, in essence, "Oh sure, criticisms on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture work in reality. But do they work in theory?" Because, as with Marxism, theory trumps reality, not simply in the experience of anybody who has ever attempted to read the Bible, but in the experience of the fragmented and mutually contradictory Protestantisms.
That said, we can observe time frames through history and throughout the bible. For example, we do not have animal sacrifices in our lifetime. But they did take place at one stage. This has passed. When Jesus came on the scene, they were still in place. His sacrifice for sin, being far superior in every sense, replaced the old sacrifices. But this did not happen without resistance. In fact, Jesus did not reveal the full truth about it until after His resurrection. And even then, it took some time for it to sink in; for some, a longer time than others.
Agreed.
But in looking back, some of God's chosen were given insight into these things and were inspired of God to share it in letters. Then, as the light became brighter concerning the new covenant, things were expounded on by those writers.
Yes and no. The oral gospel message and the written gospel message complement each other. Just by being different modes of transmission does not make one superior to the other. The Gospels are not an abridged version of the Epistles. They complement and are in harmony with other.
It happens that in the days of the epistles, the gospels were not compiled into any kind of scriptural availability for the believers of that day. Thus, each church was dependant upon the truths that were revealed to them by their founder and mentor, and by the Holy Spirit within them. In that regard, Paul did not have the luxury of informing the Romans or Corinthians, or Galatians, etc., to read the letter in light of the gospels. He rather explained and summerized what he considered to be the most relevant and important things they needed to know at the time he wrote each letter.
Correct. But Paul didn't create what he had received, and he didn't start his ministry until he had hands layed on him by a representative of the Church. Acts 9:17 Paul stayed with the disciples "some days" before he began to preach. Acts 9:19
Thus, each church was dependant upon the truths that were revealed to them by their founder and mentor, and by the Holy Spirit within them.
Their founders and mentors all taught the same things. 1 Cor. 1:10