Posted on 09/09/2004 9:56:01 PM PDT by ksen
I have seen some interesting things said on this forum. But this statement brought me up short. Here is the quote from another thread and I will leave the poster of the quote anonymous because I'd like to open a discussion about the idea behind the quote and not the person behind the quote:
However you define doctrine, it is essentially Man's interpretation of God's Law, and I believe that would even include Paul's docrtinal statements.
Was Paul writing Scripture? Are the Pauline Epistles just as much God's Word as the Gospels are? as the giving of the Mosaic Law?
I believe Peter thought they were when he told the people he was writing to to pay as much attention to Paul's writings as you do the other Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-17).
But what do you do when confronted with someone who says that Paul's interpretation of God's doctrine is fallible because it came from a man like us, albeit a man somewhat closer to God than we are.
What are your thought? And remember to keep it civil.
Ping!
Paul is hated by modernists. But, so is Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords, and King of Kings.
The original writings of Paul were very Gnostic works--the going thing in those days. They were later rewritten to reflect prevailing Roman beliefs.
Trying to promote Calvinist/Arminian harmony by picking a topic we agree on? Or Catholic/Protestant harmony?
/Going back into super-secret lurk mode before one of the HHDs says he knows where I've been
I believe Paul was clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit in a supernatural way to write his epistles. From his conversion, to his outreach to the Gentiles, to the revelation God gave him regarding the mystery of the church, to his end time teachings...
Also Paul's doctrine lines up with Old Testament nuggets of truth that have taken two thousand years and more to dig up. His books are truly integrated into the whole of scripture, evidencing eternal origins.
Heh heh, your secret is safe with me. ;^)
***They were later rewritten to reflect prevailing Roman beliefs***
And your proof of these assertations is....?
But he's watching us, precious... the Eye is always watching...
I'll have to check on this thread tomorrow. I assumed it'd be boring "Uh, yeah, of course" answers but it looks like I'm wrong. My view's orthodox of course. And if the writer of Romans wasn't inspired, then none of the rest of it's inspired either and I might as well turn pagan.
Paul's original writings were Gnostic? Do you have copies of them squirreled away somewhere that you can offer as proof?
You haven't been studying some Bart Ehrman, have you?
"The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195102797/102-9091872-9448962?v=glance
St. Paul, as an individual man was fallible. In writing those Epistles that are included in the Canon of Scripture he, like all other human authors of Scripture, was under the freely given influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit using him as an active instrument so that they are truly the word of God.
This is a miracle of the intellectual order.
I agree with you that on normal occasions Paul was just as fallible as you or I, but when he was writing Scripture it was the words of God coming out of his pen.
Therefore when Paul, in his epistles, comments on or develops doctrine then it is no longer Paul's doctrine, but God's doctrine.
I find that you are correct.
..holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost(2 Peter 1:21)...
And check out the longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, to get a drift about what God thinks about His Word.
The Bible IS the Word of God, and He used the Prophets and Apostles as His pen. So what do you say to those who claim otherwise? The same thing that Eve should have said to the serpent in the Garden oh so many years ago - when Satan first tried to cast doubt on God's Infallible Word (Genesis 3 - ...yay, hath God said...?):
....Although there may be more diplomatic variations - I'd go with: 'Spread your lies elsewhere pagan'.
Was Paul inspired? I believe so. Yet, still, I never approach his writings as if he is perfect. Paul spoke often of his own opinions on subjects and several times stated such.
I test all writings against Torah. They must line up with Torah or not be accepted. Occasionally, I can't quite clarify one thing or another, and have to put something on the back burner until I am able to clear it up. Sometimes I need a bigger stove. LOL.
Yet, Paul was of the school of Hillel, trained by Gamliel, and if you know anything about them, you know Paul knew the Torah.
ZA, What do you think of Paul's abnegation of the circumcision ritual?
Well if you say so.
Oh we can all agree that they are the inspired innerent word of God, we just can not agree on what they mean .:>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.