What exactly was Paul writing?

9/10/04 | Self

[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.

[familyop]

No...not Bart, although I'll take a look at that.

I haven't kept a bibliography but will dig up some titles/citations and get them back to you. ...might take a day or two.

And no, I'm not one of those kooks who are convinced that Paul met Satan or anything like that. I am a believer, too, BTW, but am going the way that some of the earliest Protestants started to go before they chickened out (i.e., a study of the History of the bibles--what went into the LXX included). The interest in beginning historical study again came from much of the recent slick anti-Jewish stuff and New Age revisions that've been cropping up, although I'm Protestant. Recent events caught my attention, also because I did retain a little memory of Daniel's prophecies.

[familyop]

BTW, I looked at your Free Republic web page. It's nice! ...thought you might be interested in the information behind the following. ...not to offend anyone, but that's traditional Orthodox Presbyterianism--very traditional.

Daniel's Eschatology

HTML version
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/daniel/daniel.html

PDF version
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/daniel/daniel.pdf

Dr. Lee's site
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/

[familyop]

"I test all writings against Torah."

I'm still "In the beginning," Chapter 1. At only 52 verses per year of reading, pronouncing and writing, I wonder if it's possible to live long enough from middle age to get through the whole study once?

...probably not, huh, being an isolated, wild olive twig and with things going the way they are.

[Zack Attack]

ZA, What do you think of Paul's abnegation of the circumcision ritual?

I read it differently than most. I do not see any rejection of circumcision by Paul.

Blessings

[Zack Attack]

I test all writings against Torah. Why?

Because Torah is the foundation of all truth. Without Torah, the rest of the house crumbles. Why do you think the Bereans tested all things against Torah?

[Zack Attack]

I wonder if it's possible to live long enough from middle age to get through the whole study once?

LOL. You can go through it as many times as you want, and each time you will find new things to amaze you. I plan to start writing soon and will try to keep pace with the portions.

[bobjam]

Truth is truth, regardless of how many people believe it. Many people used to believe the world to be flat, but that didn't make the world flat. God's Truth (i.e. Jesus) is true, ragerdless of how many people believe Him.

Doctrine is the Church's attempt to put into words the Truth (or principals) that is revealed. For example, "I AM the Lord thy God Who brought you out of bondage in Egypt. You shall have no other gods before Me" is revealed Truth. The ultimate revealed Truth is Jesus Christ.

Doctrine, or the words that the Truth is communicated in, can be alterred by individuals, denominations, or the Church at large. However, these changes do not change the Truth, they simply change the doctrine from being an accurate communication of the Truth to heresy. The Epistles of St Paul the Apostle are an accurate communication of the Truth of Jesus Christ.

Christians should seek after the Truth, not simply doctrine.

[thePilgrim]

My apologies if I have pinged you and you do not wish to be drawn to this thread.

Ksen, you may want to keep the identity of the poster secret, but I know the poster and it does confirm some of my fears. To deny the inspiration of Scripture is a pretty serious crime against the Logos of God.

Some might be tempted to speak to this person about the status of his/ her faith, but I think it evident that would be ill advised. My advice is to simply let it drop with the knowledge that he is in the hands of the halitosis theopneustos Logos. It is nice to know these things, though, as it lets us know how we should act and what we should expect on this forum.

I am somewhat curious to know if the Presbyterian seminaries are teaching this now. This was a part of the reason that the Episcopalians in the US have fallen apart and it does appear as if the PC(USA) is following behind them. Now, isn't that interesting and sad that the 2 dominating denominations at the time of the gift to us of the Constitution and this country are precisely the 2 denominations which are the ones falling to pieces?

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[Alex Murphy]

But he's watching us, precious... the Eye is always watching...

LOL Seems I've heard that somewhere before! Reactivating cloaking field....NOW....

[Corin Stormhands]

Whatever the intent, it's a awkward sentence.

Could mean ~ doctrine is man's interpretation of God's law which includes the writings of Paul...

OR Could mean ~ doctrine is man's interpretation of God's law for example Paul's writings...

I'd have problems with both versions, but the second seems more troubling.

And yes Jen, I know where you've been...but I'm not supposed to be here either...

[HarleyD]

I've seen these types of arguments used against ALL the scriptures including the Torah. "Moses didn't really write the Torah but they were copied down later-blah, blah, blah." (Even though after Joshua's attack at Ai it says, "he [Joshua] READ all the words of the law...there was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not READ..." Joshua 8:34-35) Someone not so long ago was arguing with me about Kings not being accurate because there were verses that didn't fit his way of thinking.

Basically, if the scripture doesn't fit somebody's preconceived notion then the scriptures are in error and you disregard it. You become like Thomas Jefferson cutting out verses that doesn't fit with your way of thinking and wrapping your theology around what's left. It's no different then making golden calves and saying "Here are your gods."

[Alex Murphy]

You become like Thomas Jefferson cutting out verses that doesn't fit with your way of thinking and wrapping your theology around what's left. It's no different then making golden calves and saying "Here are your gods."

The problem presented by Jefferson's approach is that you are presented with something that still looks deceptively like an intact Bible, unless you take the time to open the cover and explore the contents. That means you have to get "up close" first. And that's assuming you even have permission first.

Golden calves, on the other hand, are so "out there" by contrast to Biblical faith (or even to the Jeffersonian edited kind) that you can usually spot them from miles away.

[HarleyD]

"Golden calves, on the other hand, are so "out there"...that you can usually spot them from miles away."

Well, in most cases. But I'm always struck by Jeroboam actions where he create two golden calves and told the people of Israel, "Hey, it's a long trip to Jerusalem. These golden calves really brought you up out of Egypt." and the people just said "Duh, if the king says it, then it sounds good to me."

[asformeandformyhouse]

Are the Pauline Epistles just as much God's Word as the Gospels are?

The gospels (M,M,L and J) are not autobiographies. They were not written by Jesus. I don't see why one should assume that they hold a higher level of authenticity than Peter's or Paul's epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[Alex Murphy]

Quite true (and unsettling, yes). On the other hand, Moses had no difficulty telling a Golden Calf from a Burning Bush. A Golden Calf is, by nature, a lot more flashy than a chopped-up Bible sporting an intact cover.

[lupie]

Paul was right. No baby needs to be cut to fulfill some religious belief of their parent. It was always a barbaric custom, and Paul did right in steering Christianity away from it.

Why do you think that something that God commanded is barbaric?

And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you... This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

[Bohemund]

The gospels (M,M,L and J) are not autobiographies. They were not written by Jesus. I don't see why one should assume that they hold a higher level of authenticity than Peter's or Paul's epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I happen to believe that Paul was divinely inspired. But why would a quote from Paul that "scripture is given by inspiration from God" prove to a skeptic that Paul was inspired?

[lupie]

How is cutting a baby a holy thing? Isn't it innately barbaric?

It is holy because God commanded it to be a sign of His covenant with Abraham. It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the Word of God says. It isn't barbaric if you truly understand some of the Truth God is teaching/revealing in the passage. And that, you need to take up with the Author.