Are all books of the Bible equal in authority?

[Sylvansealy]

Hello friends.
I want to ask a question that, to me, goes beyond the realm of traditional apologetics. Then again I might very well be wrong! Let me preface by saying that, it seems to me at least, Catholic apologetics has the “basic” issues pretty well covered. Any Catholic who does 1 hour of homework can explain, convincingly, our doctrine of justification or why we pray to Mary or why we have the Eucharist. The basic objections against Catholicism are ultimately easily refuted once you “get” the logic you are trying to explain. Again, this is what it seems to me. Now obviously, the person one is talking to may or may not be open to what you are trying to say. If they ARE open, these basic apologetics go over quite well. If not, I’ve noticed in my short experience that the argument just goes in circles, with each of us repeating the party line with ever more clarity or examples. At that point, the best thing to do is part ways with kind words and exhortations to be open and never stop seeking truth.

So all that leads up to my question: I’ve been in discussions lately with Protestant ministers and students that quite frankly just leave me shocked. The specific issue I want to ask you all about is the nature of the human person. A Protestant I know insists, based on the line from 1 Thessalonians 5 and especially Hebrews 4, that a human being is a composite of a body (fleshly nature), a soul (mind, intellect, will), and a SPIRIT. This third part is the most important part of the person, the part that was saved when he was born again (he actually says “when my spirit was born again”), the part that sits mystically at the right of Jesus (he says “now I am in Christ and can never lose the status of being ‘in Christ’ - not by sin, at least”), and the part that guarantees his salvation. In this life, he can go on sinning, but he believes his spirit will talk to God’s spirit and eventually renew his mind and his flesh and he will be truly walking according to the Spirit.

You have no idea how frustrating it is talking to him about this. “The bible isn’t a book of biology!” I say, and “not all books of the Bible are created equal . . . what Paul says is important but he is not God, therefore, since Jesus never talks about our ‘spirit’ Paul must have just been trying to explain things theologically!” All to no avail. He is convinced that the spirit is the really real part of him, and he thinks that all books of the Bible are equally important (except the OT, which may as well not matter anymore since we are not under the Law in Christ. He actually believes that Jesus’ ministry before his death was incomplete, because, since Jesus ministered in the time of the Old Covenant to those under the Law, what he spoke about does not always apply to Christians since, when he died and rose, a new order was created!! So what Jesus said before he died has to be filtered through our New Covenant lenses and discarded or manipulated as necessary).

This notion of spirit undergirds this man’s entire Christianity, and I cannot even get through the basic teachings of the Catholic church without always coming back to this. Do you have any suggestions or ideas or solutions for this dilemma?? It just seems like so many Protestants aren’t going to hear our basic apologetics because they are operating out of an entirely different worldview! Thanks for your help and God bless your ministry.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Sylvan__,

All books of the Bible, including the Old Testament, are the word of God. Who can say that one part of God’s word is not as important as another? Certainly some are better written than others; some are easier to understand than others. But all are equally true.

I won’t get into the discussions you’re having. But please don’t try to refute a statement by saying that some part of the Bible are not as important as others. At the same time, it is important to take the whole bible into account when looking for the truth. Since all parts have the same author, they cannot contradict each other but only complement each other.

Verbum

 

[Todd_Easton]

How can your friend’s spirit “talk to” God’s spirit, if his spirit does not possess intellect and will?

 

[donusII]

I agree with verbum that the tact to take is to resist the inclination to create a hierarchy among the books of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit has guarded and directed the editing and development of the Scriptures. I think that discussions about how to understand these Divinely given texts, grounded in the theology and teachings of the Church, are completely proper. It’s much more likely that interpretations are flawed than it is that the Holy Spirit gave us books more or less perfect than others. This is a lay opinion.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ask him to explain

Romans 12
1I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye **present your bodies a living sacrifice, **holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

1 Corinthians 7:34
and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord** in both body and spirit.** But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates **body and spirit, **perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 Thessalonians 5:23
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:13
Be Holy ] Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.

1 Peter 4:7
The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.

Note: In Hebrew Jewish thinking the mind was located in the Heart.

Hebrews 8:10
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Hebrews 10:16
“This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

Colossians 3:2
Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.

Philippians 4:7
And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 4:23
to be made new in the attitude of your minds;

1 Corinthians 14:15
So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

Romans 8:5-6
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;

I have given you most of these scriptures in the NIV because the King James translates both physical body and sin nature with the same word flesh. Some of his problem is not telling the difference between them thus he equates his sin nature with his body or physical flesh.

And, yes some passages do carry more weight than others. For example, when God is speaking in the first person, thus saith the Lord.

Here the Lord is speaking first person,

Ezekiel 18:32 (King James Version)

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Here David is speaking,

Psalm 5:5 (King James Version)

The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? If he hates them then why does John 3:16 start out “For God so loved the world…”

Also, if a passage is clear, and another passage is difficult to understand than the clear one guides our interpretation of the difficult one.

Paul in one of his letters I cor 7? plainly says that he is giving his own opinion in that text.

1 Corinthians 7:12 (King James Version)
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

 

[donusII]

a lot of work went into that post Daniel - good on you! as to the relative weight of some things over others, I thought the question was whether some books of the Bible are “more correct” than others, and not whether we might accord a particular passage or type of passage greater meaning. I think that this is an important distinction. No?

 

[Sylvansealy]

Thanks everyone for your very helpful responses. Yes, as you said donus, the issue is not whether one book or another is more correct or less correct. The issue is whether some books are to be given more attention than others. My friend quotes Paul exclusively. I tell him that Paul is not my God . . . so let’s hear what Jesus says. He replies by saying that it’s all Scripture, so one does not carry more weight than another.

And in regard to the spirit, thank you very much for the concordance of verses, Daniel! I guess the next step for me is discerning how to apply them and our Catholic theology (man is an embodied soul - no mention of spirit there) to this discussion to prove that the “spirit” is not a third component of a person but more our “spiritual capacity.”

 

[Teflon93]

If all we had of the Bible was the Book of Esther, how different the world would be!

No, I don’t think all are equally important from a salvation point-of-view, but I think once one accepts the canon one accepts the authority of all.

I may not understand why all are necessary, but I’m not Christ’s Vicar on Earth either. If a given book seems to have less authority, it’s my judgment which is in error, not the Church’s.

Would only that Martin Luther had felt the same way.

 

[Teflon93]

My friend quotes Paul exclusively. I tell him that Paul is not my God . . . so let’s hear what Jesus says. He replies by saying that it’s all Scripture, so one does not carry more weight than another.

This simply floors me. Why on Earth are there so many Protestant Bibles with Christ’s words in red ink then?

Paul’s message to the Hebrews is hardly on a par with Christ’s message to us during the Sermon on the Mount, is it?

 

[donusII]

This simply floors me. Why on Earth are there so many Protestant Bibles with Christ’s words in red ink then?

Paul’s message to the Hebrews is hardly on a par with Christ’s message to us during the Sermon on the Mount, is it?

Point taken Teflon, but how less flooring is it for us to assert that we’re able to weigh the relative truth or strength of various portions of the Divinely reveled Scripture (NT) when arguing with others about the meaning of that Scripture, or about how it should be interpreted? Shouldn’t the flaw, instead, be how that person seeks to use the Divinely revealed Scripture of God? It seems rather prideful to tell the Holy Spirit, essentially, “You did a pretty good job ol’ boy, but you didn’t get it quite right when you let in this passage from Paul.”

 

[Teflon93]

Point taken Teflon, but how less flooring is it for us to assert that we’re able to weigh the relative truth or strength of various portions of the Divinely reveled Scripture (NT) when arguing with others about the meaning of that Scripture, or about how it should be interpreted? Shouldn’t the flaw, instead, be how that person seeks to use the Divinely revealed Scripture of God? It seems rather prideful to tell the Holy Spirit, essentially, “You did a pretty good job ol’ boy, but you didn’t get it quite right when you let in this passage from Paul.”

Oh no, let me be clear—I don’t believe that Paul contradicts Christ; I just think that where Christ and Paul speak on the same topic, I naturally look to Christ as the authoritative view.

This is both because Christ is Christ and because the epistles were not meant to be equivalent to the gospels in theological importance.

This is also why it’s important to consider Scripture as a whole and not cherrypick verses or epistles as though they were the whole of it.

Thanks for calling that to my attention.

 

[donusII]

Oh no, let me be clear—I don’t believe that Paul contradicts Christ; I just think that where Christ and Paul speak on the same topic, I naturally look to Christ as the authoritative view.

This is both because Christ is Christ and because the epistles were not meant to be equivalent to the gospels in theological importance.

This is also why it’s important to consider Scripture as a whole and not cherrypick verses or epistles as though they were the whole of it.

Thanks for calling that to my attention.

Okay - we’re in heated agreement.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

My friend quotes Paul exclusively. I tell him that Paul is not my God . . . so let’s hear what Jesus says. He replies by saying that it’s all Scripture, so one does not carry more weight than another.

This line bothers me a bit, and thus I want to reverse this a bit. Has anyone else here met anti-Pauline Protestants? I have met several in the last year. The first one I met I figured was just a kook, but after him I have met perhaps five more, all indepedently of one another. It bothers me deeply.

In every single instance, we have discussed my gravitation towards Orthodoxy/Catholicism, and when I defended a doctrine by making recourse to one of Paul’s epistles, they responded that they don’t recognize Paul. They all even offered some variation on the line “you can follow Paul if you want - I follow God!” And from there they accuse me of worshipping Paul.

After giving it some thought, I now think such people are part of the logical progression of Protestantism (with its tacit rule that a lay person can define doctrine as he goes along). Just as they could choose to reject the ‘Deuterocanonicals’, so too they can choose to reject the Pauline epistles.

 

[donusII]

This is both because Christ is Christ and because the epistles were not meant to be equivalent to the gospels in theological importance.

This is also why it’s important to consider Scripture as a whole and not cherrypick verses or epistles as though they were the whole of it.

And what you wrote right here, I think, is the complete and sufficient rebuttal to the original argument offered.

 

[mdgspencer]

If these questions are beyond your power to answer, it may be best if you don’t continue such discussions.
If you do go on, and such questions involve Scripture, you might consider going through Bible commentaries. If there is a seminary or church-based university near you, you could check out such passages in the commentaries there. Many commentaries have been published on each book of the Bible.

 

[Teflon93]

This line bothers me a bit, and thus I want to reverse this a bit. Has anyone else here met anti-Pauline Protestants? I have met several in the last year. The first one I met I figured was just a kook, but after him I have met perhaps five more, all indepedently of one another. It bothers me deeply.

In every single instance, we have discussed my gravitation towards Orthodoxy/Catholicism, and when I defended a doctrine by making recourse to one of Paul’s epistles, they responded that they don’t recognize Paul. They all even offered some variation on the line “you can follow Paul if you want - I follow God!” And from there they accuse me of worshipping Paul.

After giving it some thought, I now think such people are part of the logical progression of Protestantism (with its tacit rule that a lay person can define doctrine as he goes along). Just as they could choose to reject the ‘Deuterocanonicals’, so too they can choose to reject the Pauline epistles.

This is an interesting point. I’ve seen the opposite tendency among the Protestants I know; there are ideas and doctrinal nuggets within the Pauline epistles (esp Hebrews and Romans) which they emphasize even over the gospels because they are so core to their own doctrinal beliefs.

I recently asked what Calvinists made of Paul’s assertion that God desires all men to be saved; that’s one group I might think would tend to downplay Paul as a result of their emphasis on predestination. No definitive answer to that thread, btw, mainly wound up in a quarrel over what “all” means.

 

[Teflon93]

And what you wrote right here, I think, is the complete and sufficient rebuttal to the original argument offered.

Thanks—by my count, that’s 1 post out of 2,350-odd where I’ve actually answered the OP.

It’s a start.