WHO determined Paul’s personal letters and writings as being “the god-breathed word of God”
Why, that would be none other than Paul, himself. (See II Tim. 3:16 for further elaboration.)
I just looked at that verse, and Paul says "all scripture". He doesn't say his letters which, at that time, weren't scripture. Only the Torah was scripture.
I just looked at that verse, and Paul says "all scripture". He doesn't say his letters which, at that time, weren't scripture. Only the Torah was scripture.
There are a couple problems with this approach.
1. I may be remembering incorrectly, but, in PFAL, Wierwille says (I'm paraphrasing.) "All means all, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21."
Later, perhaps in another teaching, he invokes the "foreknowledge" angle to explain God already knew what would be included in the canon as he was inspiring it. (Not that I place much value on VPW's opinion but that's another matter.)
*Someone please correct me if I am remembering this wrong*
2. There are many demonstrable, historical and scientific errors in the Torah. Why would God inspire scripture that lacked integrity? If you're using the Torah as the gold standard of what is and what isn't God-Breathed we might have a problem.
3. Scripture, in the least common denominator, means something that has been preserved in textual form. Does that not describe Paul's letters?
If it doesn't, that would mean that Paul's words were devoid of authority until they were incorporated into the Bible.
If it doesn't, that would mean that Paul's words were devoid of authority until they were incorporated into the Bible.
Okay, maybe it became lost in the woodwork here (because it was quoted from some other 'non-doctrinal' thread), so I'll say it again.
Paul very openly declared himself to be "the apostle" (not "an apostle") to the Gentiles. Perhaps one of the best reasons to take Paul's epistles as "the word of God" is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above? Well, it won't be for some (probably not for most), which is not unlike how the many signs given to Israel was not enough that they would believe in the authority that Jesus Christ had. However, the evidence (or proof, if you prefer) is something that each of us can (if so drawn) garner for ourselves. What I have and hold won't suffice for you, nor anyone else. Just like no one else's would for me. Seems we each must "prove it" for ourselves, even as we can (and should) prove for ourselves what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (see Rom. 12:2; Eph.5:10; 1Thes.5:21.)
Comes right down to the title of this Sub-topic.....”Questioning Faith”. Which, as TLC states above, is a completely unique, individual, and most personal decision for all who make it.
“Perhaps one of the best reasons to take Paul's epistles as "the word of God" is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above?”
Yes. Prove that Paul’s Epistles are god-breathed by quoting Paul from one of those Epistles he wrote? That makes it strictly a “matter of faith”.....you either believe Paul’s letters are scripture or you don’t. Well, I for one, don’t. TLC does. He demands “proof” from me, yet resorts to overt logical fallacy of using a false premise to prove a false hypothesis. Quoting itself to prove itself.
At least there is a hint of tolerance in TLC’s last post, for the idea that others with different decisions of faith from his own, are not necessarily heretical cynics, gainsayers just out to subvert the flock with word-battles and vicious divisions. Perhaps they are equally as Christian as TLC or anyone else who purports to be one? Maybe................peace.
After reading the first three pages (that was all I could stomach) of that thread, as well as this thread and other posts I have seen in this forum, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of those posting at GreaseSpot cafe are even wackier than TWI or any of the other offshoots. I didn't even know that was possible. I am bowing out of this whole forum. Later you all.
If/when you decide to come back I am curious as to what your criteria is to determine who is “wackier”.
online definitions of the word “wacky” list several usages: funny or amusing in slightly odd or peculiar way; strange in a pleasing and exciting or silly way; absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational; crazy.
Just a guess on my part - but I’m thinking you meant irrational, or not logical, groundless, unjustifiable - but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong...and since your post does suggest you are somewhat familiar with “TWI or any of the offshoots” I was wondering if you could explain why you think any of them are less wacky or less irrational than the majority of posters at Grease Spot...and for that matter as a baseline, perhaps you could name another group - maybe it’s the one you’re with - who you think are not wacky at all...evidently you have some litmus test to determine where one is placed on the wacky spectrum.
Anyway, you’re welcome to come back anytime. Peace!
Scripture, in the least common denominator, means something that has been preserved in textual form. Does that not describe Paul's letters?
No, that can't be the least common denominator of scripture. If it was, then everything written would be scripture.
When Paul wrote that, do you think he already knew that there would be a Christian bible that would include the old testament, and writings from apostles and others, including himself, in a new testament? I don't. That's why I don't believe he was referring to his own letters when he wrote that statement.
10 hours ago, TLC said:
Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above? Well, it won't be for some (probably not for most), which is not unlike how the many signs given to Israel was not enough that they would believe in the authority that Jesus Christ had.
I have no doubt that Paul was who he said he was. He was extremely knowledgeable in the scriptures, what was already written, and his letters testify to that deep understanding. He was only missing the truth of Jesus Christ, but then he was on fire. Just as Jesus Christ spoke with authority (do you think every time Jesus spoke God was inspiring him? or was it based on his own depth of understanding?), Paul also taught, and wrote, with authority, because of his own depth of understanding.
I see Paul as an amazing teacher, and because he was actually living the Love of God, he kept in communication with those he had taught and spent time with. He cared. And at times he responded to information he learned about errors in peoples' actions. Does that automatically mean that his letters were inspired of God? I say it was just a loving response, something that is sorely lacking in our day.
have no doubt that Paul was who he said he was. He was extremely knowledgeable in the scriptures, what was already written, and his letters testify to that deep understanding. He was only missing the truth of Jesus Christ,
"only missing the truth of Jesus Christ"?
Care to explain what he missed and you (or someone else) didn't?
When they were written, naturally.
Think Peter would have had any different answer?
NOT! Someone, many years later, compiled his letters, and others, to form the new testament. When Paul wrote to those various churches, they were just letters. Or do you think Paul was making copies for himself to compile into, say, a collateral.
And, personally, I seriously doubt Peter even knew about those letters.
When Paul wrote to those various churches, they were just letters.
That's my point.
And yet, within the context of those letters, he declares that everything he writes is God-Breathed. It's self validation and a great example of circular reasoning.
And yet, within the context of those letters, he declares that everything he writes is God-Breathed. It's self validation and a great example of circular reasoning.
I don't disagree. However, just because something is "self validating" doesn't automatically make it (or mean that it's) impossible for anyone to validate it unto or for themselves. What any of us might accept as validation can vary. Personally, I find this rather hard to dispute or argue against:
On 7/14/2018 at 8:13 AM, TLC said:
Perhaps one of the best reasons to take Paul's epistles as "the word of God" is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works.
Of course. But, stop and think about what the question was. IF you really think and believe that what Paul wrote is scripture (and some do not, obviously), then the only possible right answer is "when it was written." It only becomes a piece or part of "the Bible" if or when canonized. The task of canonization was merely trying to determine what did or didn't qualified as scripture, not to suddenly "transform" ordinary writings into scripture.
Of course. But, stop and think about what the question was. IF you really think and believe that what Paul wrote is scripture (and some do not, obviously), then the only possible right answer is "when it was written." It only becomes a piece or part of "the Bible" if or when canonized. The task of canonization was merely trying to determine what did or didn't qualified as scripture, not to suddenly "transform" ordinary writings into scripture.
Which further illustrates my point that it's circular, self validating.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
21
18
54
Popular Days
Jul 15
20
Jul 2
20
Jul 11
20
Jul 5
15
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 18 posts
chockfull 21 posts
Infoabsorption 18 posts
TLC 54 posts
Popular Days
Jul 15 2018
20 posts
Jul 2 2018
20 posts
Jul 11 2018
20 posts
Jul 5 2018
15 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Dispensationalism is a man-made, private interpretation of “ALL scripture”, DEAD doctrine, based upon early 19th century textual and critical evidence which relied completely upon the latest 16th cent
DontWorryBeHappy
Hi Taxidev! imho, the entire “Biblical” and doctrinal underpinning Of TWIt’s private interpretation is based on the FALSE PREMISE (logical fallacy) Of dispensationalism. This was actually a world
chockfull
So on the education dig I know that's pointed towards someone on this thread, but I think criticizing any of us on our education background is a bit obnoxious. I mean my theological education was 4
Taxidev
I just looked at that verse, and Paul says "all scripture". He doesn't say his letters which, at that time, weren't scripture. Only the Torah was scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There are a couple problems with this approach.
1. I may be remembering incorrectly, but, in PFAL, Wierwille says (I'm paraphrasing.) "All means all, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21."
Later, perhaps in another teaching, he invokes the "foreknowledge" angle to explain God already knew what would be included in the canon as he was inspiring it. (Not that I place much value on VPW's opinion but that's another matter.)
*Someone please correct me if I am remembering this wrong*
2. There are many demonstrable, historical and scientific errors in the Torah. Why would God inspire scripture that lacked integrity? If you're using the Torah as the gold standard of what is and what isn't God-Breathed we might have a problem.
3. Scripture, in the least common denominator, means something that has been preserved in textual form. Does that not describe Paul's letters?
If it doesn't, that would mean that Paul's words were devoid of authority until they were incorporated into the Bible.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
And that's what he was asking to have - make that "especially" so - brought to him a few verses later?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, maybe it became lost in the woodwork here (because it was quoted from some other 'non-doctrinal' thread), so I'll say it again.
Paul very openly declared himself to be "the apostle" (not "an apostle") to the Gentiles. Perhaps one of the best reasons to take Paul's epistles as "the word of God" is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above? Well, it won't be for some (probably not for most), which is not unlike how the many signs given to Israel was not enough that they would believe in the authority that Jesus Christ had. However, the evidence (or proof, if you prefer) is something that each of us can (if so drawn) garner for ourselves. What I have and hold won't suffice for you, nor anyone else. Just like no one else's would for me. Seems we each must "prove it" for ourselves, even as we can (and should) prove for ourselves what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (see Rom. 12:2; Eph.5:10; 1Thes.5:21.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Comes right down to the title of this Sub-topic.....”Questioning Faith”. Which, as TLC states above, is a completely unique, individual, and most personal decision for all who make it.
“Perhaps one of the best reasons to take Paul's epistles as "the word of God" is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above?”
Yes. Prove that Paul’s Epistles are god-breathed by quoting Paul from one of those Epistles he wrote? That makes it strictly a “matter of faith”.....you either believe Paul’s letters are scripture or you don’t. Well, I for one, don’t. TLC does. He demands “proof” from me, yet resorts to overt logical fallacy of using a false premise to prove a false hypothesis. Quoting itself to prove itself.
At least there is a hint of tolerance in TLC’s last post, for the idea that others with different decisions of faith from his own, are not necessarily heretical cynics, gainsayers just out to subvert the flock with word-battles and vicious divisions. Perhaps they are equally as Christian as TLC or anyone else who purports to be one? Maybe................peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
If/when you decide to come back I am curious as to what your criteria is to determine who is “wackier”.
online definitions of the word “wacky” list several usages: funny or amusing in slightly odd or peculiar way; strange in a pleasing and exciting or silly way; absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational; crazy.
Just a guess on my part - but I’m thinking you meant irrational, or not logical, groundless, unjustifiable - but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong...and since your post does suggest you are somewhat familiar with “TWI or any of the offshoots” I was wondering if you could explain why you think any of them are less wacky or less irrational than the majority of posters at Grease Spot...and for that matter as a baseline, perhaps you could name another group - maybe it’s the one you’re with - who you think are not wacky at all...evidently you have some litmus test to determine where one is placed on the wacky spectrum.
Anyway, you’re welcome to come back anytime. Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
No, that can't be the least common denominator of scripture. If it was, then everything written would be scripture.
When Paul wrote that, do you think he already knew that there would be a Christian bible that would include the old testament, and writings from apostles and others, including himself, in a new testament? I don't. That's why I don't believe he was referring to his own letters when he wrote that statement.
I have no doubt that Paul was who he said he was. He was extremely knowledgeable in the scriptures, what was already written, and his letters testify to that deep understanding. He was only missing the truth of Jesus Christ, but then he was on fire. Just as Jesus Christ spoke with authority (do you think every time Jesus spoke God was inspiring him? or was it based on his own depth of understanding?), Paul also taught, and wrote, with authority, because of his own depth of understanding.
I see Paul as an amazing teacher, and because he was actually living the Love of God, he kept in communication with those he had taught and spent time with. He cared. And at times he responded to information he learned about errors in peoples' actions. Does that automatically mean that his letters were inspired of God? I say it was just a loving response, something that is sorely lacking in our day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When did Paul's writings become "scripture"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
"only missing the truth of Jesus Christ"?
Care to explain what he missed and you (or someone else) didn't?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
When they were written, naturally.
Think Peter would have had any different answer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Do you honestly not see how this is circular?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I wasn't relying on only the old testament. I had the benefit of Paul's writings. He didn't. And, the entire nation of Israel missed it also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
NOT! Someone, many years later, compiled his letters, and others, to form the new testament. When Paul wrote to those various churches, they were just letters. Or do you think Paul was making copies for himself to compile into, say, a collateral.
And, personally, I seriously doubt Peter even knew about those letters.
Edited by TaxidevAdditional information
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seriously? Then evidently you don't think or believe that Peter wrote 2Peter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Neither was Paul.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's my point.
And yet, within the context of those letters, he declares that everything he writes is God-Breathed. It's self validation and a great example of circular reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I don't disagree. However, just because something is "self validating" doesn't automatically make it (or mean that it's) impossible for anyone to validate it unto or for themselves. What any of us might accept as validation can vary. Personally, I find this rather hard to dispute or argue against:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Of course. But, stop and think about what the question was. IF you really think and believe that what Paul wrote is scripture (and some do not, obviously), then the only possible right answer is "when it was written." It only becomes a piece or part of "the Bible" if or when canonized. The task of canonization was merely trying to determine what did or didn't qualified as scripture, not to suddenly "transform" ordinary writings into scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Which further illustrates my point that it's circular, self validating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So are a great many (other) things in this life, wayside.
Most of which are such a big circle, we simply tend not to see where ends meet.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
We're not talking about "many (other) things in life", though, are we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Where does he declare that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Thank you. I didn't remember him saying that in there!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
This means nothing to me, so this argument is moot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.