Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[jinc1019]

Very simple question…Why are Paul’s writings considered part of the sacred canon? He obviously was not Jesus and wasn’t there when Jesus made the promises made in Mathew 16 and Mathew 18 to Peter and the other apostles. So why do we take his writings and make them sacred scripture? I am not saying they shouldn’t be (although sometimes I admittedly feel that way), but I am curious what the Early Church reasoning was for this. Thanks in advance.

Justin

 

[Della]

St. Paul’s apostleship was accepted by those whom Jesus had appointed before his ascension:

Acts 9[27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
[28] So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem,
[29] preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

Since Jesus himself appeared to Paul, he was accpeted as an Apostle, just as they were. The word apostle means “one who is sent”. Jesus himself sent Paul to the Gentiles as their special Apostle while Peter had been appointed as the holder of the “keys of the kingdom”, hence the earthly head of the Church. Each had his own calling and mission, but all we united in the one faith.

St. Peter wrote of Paul’s writings:

2Peter3[15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
[16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

It is apparent that Peter considered Paul equal to him in dignity and, like his, one whose writings were to be read as scripture, and therefore to be heeded as such.

St. Jerome, when compiling the NT writings had a precribed number of criteria for including certain 1st century writings in the canon. One was the person writing had to be in close proximity to Christ–one who saw him or one who sat at the feet of those who did. St. Paul filled that as well as other criteria and so his writings were included in the NT.

 

[jinc1019]

St. Paul’s apostleship was accepted by those whom Jesus had appointed before his ascension:

Acts 9[27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
[28] So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem,
[29] preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

Since Jesus himself appeared to Paul, he was accpeted as an Apostle, just as they were. The word apostle means “one who is sent”. Jesus himself sent Paul to the Gentiles as their special Apostle while Peter had been appointed as the holder of the “keys of the kingdom”, hence the earthly head of the Church. Each had his own calling and mission, but all we united in the one faith.

St. Peter wrote of Paul’s writings:

2Peter3[15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
[16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

It is apparent that Peter considered Paul equal to him in dignity and, like his, one whose writings were to be read as scripture, and therefore to be heeded as such.

St. Jerome, when compiling the NT writings had a precribed number of criteria for including certain 1st century writings in the canon. One was the person writing had to be in close proximity to Christ–one who saw him or one who sat at the feet of those who did. St. Paul filled that as well as other criteria and so his writings were included in the NT.

Thanks for the information!
I don’t agree that Peter advocated that Paul should be treated as an infallible authority, however, only an authority. And there is a big difference there as I am sure you can see. Even the quote you listed doesn’t show Peter arguing for Paul’s infallible protection…and I agree that many considered Paul to be an apostle of Jesus, but what difference does that make? There is no evidence in tradition or in scripture to suggest that Jesus told Paul that he would be infallibly protected, is there? If there is, I would love to see that…but as far I know, and I am not saying I know for sure, I have never come across this. All we have is Peter endorsing Paul as a legitimate Christian teacher blessed by God and Paul endorsing himself as a legitimate teacher endorsed by God.

I believe in 1 Galatians 8 (or 5), Paul writes that “Even if we or the angels in heaven” teach something that contradicts the gospels he has already taught to the Galatians, don’t listen to them and consider them accursed. Notice that Paul says “we.” Why? If Paul is infallibly protected, everything Paul says must be true.

 

[Della]

I think you may be laboring under a misconception about Paul and scripture in general. The Bible is not considered infallible–people can be infallible but not writings. Writings can be inerrant, which is what the Church claims for the Bible.

Paul is using the editorial we in that he is speaking not only for himself, but for all who were sent as apostles. He was answering a very specific problem–that of the Judaizers trying to disturb the peace of the Gentile converts by insisting they follow all the Jewish ordinances. As the Apostle to the Gentiles, as he was sent by the other Apostles, he had the right and duty to speak on their behalf in such matters.

Why do you have a difficulty with Paul’s writings/what difficulty are you having? Maybe that might be the question we need to address to answer your concerns. Also, have you come in contact with people claiming that Paul’s teaching were radically different from that of Christ’s or the other Apostles? If we know what your concern(s) is then we can deal with it. Or am I off base?

 

[jinc1019]

Actually no, I have not come into contact with anyone who believes Paul’s writings contradict anything else in the Bible.

If Paul’s writings truly are inerrant, and therefore when interpreted as they are plainly written, infallible, then I would happily agree and accept them. The problem truly is that I don’t see why anyone should. Nor do I believe Paul, when he wrote those letters, intended on them being taken as infallible. This isn’t just a personal belief I have, it is based on what he said. As you already mentioned, they were responses to specific questions, which implies that the use of those letters is narrow.

Additionally, as I mentioned in the previous post, 1 Galatians 8 (or 5, still can’t remember) makes it clear when read plainly that Paul didn’t see everything he said as infallible, only certain truths which outlines as infallible. I don’t see why EVERYTHING Paul says should be considered infallible or inerrant. After all, Catholics constantly say that only a very specific and narrow group of things the Pope says are infallible and that the Pope can also teach without infallibility in some capacity. Why does the Church, and every other main Christian group, accept everything Paul said in a way that defies how Catholics even view the Pope?

 

[POJIUJH]

Are you perhaps infallible?

The Church has spoken. That is enough.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

 

[jinc1019]

Are you perhaps infallible?

The Church has spoken. That is enough.

This is such a horrible answer.

And, I didn’t ask if…I asked why. And that is a totally reasonable question.

 

[Della]

Actually no, I have not come into contact with anyone who believes Paul’s writings contradict anything else in the Bible.

If Paul’s writings truly are inerrant, and therefore when interpreted as they are plainly written, infallible, then I would happily agree and accept them. The problem truly is that I don’t see why anyone should. Nor do I believe Paul, when he wrote those letters, intended on them being taken as infallible. This isn’t just a personal belief I have, it is based on what he said. As you already mentioned, they were responses to specific questions, which implies that the use of those letters is narrow.

Additionally, as I mentioned in the previous post, 1 Galatians 8 (or 5, still can’t remember) makes it clear when read plainly that Paul didn’t see everything he said as infallible, only certain truths which outlines as infallible. I don’t see why EVERYTHING Paul says should be considered infallible or inerrant. After all, Catholics constantly say that only a very specific and narrow group of things the Pope says are infallible and that the Pope can also teach without infallibility in some capacity. Why does the Church, and every other main Christian group, accept everything Paul said in a way that defies how Catholics even view the Pope?

You may as well ask why we believe anyone’s writings contained in scripture. Why pick on Paul, if you understand what I mean? It is perhaps because you are having hard time understanding him? I think that may be the reason. He is difficult–no doubt about it. One needs to study his writings extensively to truly grasp all he is saying. Ronald Know wrote a lovely book, out of print, unfortunately, in which he explains how Paul taught the Gospel message. I found it very helpful. You may be able to find a copy on amazon.

Paul doesn’t defy how Catholics view the Pope. Where did you get that idea?

 

[jinc1019]

You may as well ask why we believe anyone’s writings contained in scripture. Why pick on Paul, if you understand what I mean? It is perhaps because you are having hard time understanding him? I think that may be the reason. He is difficult–no doubt about it. One needs to study his writings extensively to truly grasp all he is saying. Ronald Know wrote a lovely book, out of print, unfortunately, in which he explains how Paul taught the Gospel message. I found it very helpful. You may be able to find a copy on amazon.

Paul doesn’t defy how Catholics view the Pope. Where did you get that idea?

To address your point, I am not picking on Paul at all. Peter was an apostle that Jesus, according to the Gospel tradition, gave authority to. The Gospels are themselves, the best evidence we have of what Jesus said, and Jesus and God should have ultimately authority. Paul is neither of those things.

I am not saying Paul defies what the Pope teaches, I think I didn’t explain that very clearly. What I was saying is…Paul wrote his letters in a time before the Bible was compiled…and there is no evidence to suggest he ever intended for those things to be considered sacred scripture, at least not all of it. The reason I bring up the Pope is to illustrate the point that it makes no sense to speak of Paul as an infallible source of authority in his letters because even the Pope, who true Catholics view as capable of teaching infallible truths, does not ALWAYS have infallibility. The Pope is, according to Catholic teaching, only infallible in certain instances, when speaking ex cathedra, for instance.

So think of it this way…If ABC News released a story tomorrow that they found a letter written by the current Pope to a friend that says “Jesus isn’t God and was never God,” what would the immediate Catholic response be (and let’s assume the letter was real). The response would be, it doesn’t matter what the Pope thinks privately because his private opinions are not protected by infallibility…Right? In the past, we have seen cases just like this, where popes have written things that were not accepted as true by the Church. The Church has even branded certain Popes as heretics if I am not mistaken. So, my point is, why are we treating every single thing Paul wrote as infallible? How do we even know what Paul’s intentions were when he wrote it? We don’t because we don’t understand the complete context and we probably never will.

So Paul was not an actual apostle of Jesus during his life on earth, Paul was not promised the protection of infallibility like the other apostles and Peter, Paul was rejected by some early Christians for this very reason, and even if Paul did have infallible protections and was considered a full apostle and did have all of the authority he needed to teach, not everything Paul said can be considered infallible, just as not everything Popes say can be considered infallible. See what I mean? We are applying a much lower standard to Paul than we do to Popes.

 

[pablope]

Very simple question…Why are Paul’s writings considered part of the sacred canon?

Justin

Because Pope Damasus said so after the Council of Rome of AD382…so that Christians can have a standard set of writings to be read during the Mass…one of the original reasons for compiling the canon. Paul’s writings were never intended to be taken soley…by the Church when they were included in the Canon…they were to also be used as a teaching tool.

 

[sanctabellator]

I would say tbe OP asked a reaso.able question and has been receptive to comments. There is no need to be abrasive toward him.

To the op I would say that there are letters by a few authors that were not apostles including luke;also titus jude timothy.

I have been taught tbat the sacred scrhipture was recognzed at least partially becauze that is wbat was most used in tbe early liturgies. God bless and keep up the questions as well as the receptivity to answers.

 

[pablope]

To address your point, I am not picking on Paul at all. Peter was an apostle that Jesus, according to the Gospel tradition, gave authority to. The Gospels are themselves, the best evidence we have of what Jesus said, and Jesus and God should have ultimately authority. Paul is neither of those things.

Paul is also an apostles…in a sense, though called directly by Jesus…also saw fit not to go out on his own and to have fellowship with the Apostles…see Gal 1 and 2.

I am not saying Paul defies what the Pope teaches, I think I didn’t explain that very clearly. What I was saying is…Paul wrote his letters in a time before the Bible was compiled…and there is no evidence to suggest he ever intended for those things to be considered sacred scripture, at least not all of it.

 

[po18guy]

Why? We have the testimony of Ananias in Damascus (Acts 9:10-19) that he was petitioned directly by the Lord to anoint Saul, as Saul was God’s chosen vessel to carry the Gospel to the nations. As well, Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to ensure that his Gospel was in accord with that of the Twelve (Galatians 2:1-2, 6-10).

 

[sanctabellator]

If by what paul said you mean his writings thhan indeed it is innerant. There is a coherence of truths within the Bible. One thi.g cannot co.tradict another.

 

[ExGratia]

This may not contribute much, but when I was returning to the Church, I drank up Paul’s words and would not be where I am today without them. Yes, they addressed issues in the early Church, but they also addressed issues in my own soul, in the Year of Our Lord, 2009.

So anyone who hasn’t read the Letters, please give them a chance. Although Paul may have had a specific audience in mind, our Lord had a much, much broader one planned.

 

[po18guy]

This may not contribute much, but when I was returning to the Church, I drank up Paul’s words and would not be where I am today without them. Yes, they addressed issues in the early Church, but they also addressed issues in my own soul, in the Year of Our Lord, 2009.

So anyone who hasn’t read the Letters, please give them a chance. Although Paul may have had a specific audience in mind, our Lord had a much, much broader one planned.

Fr. Robert Barron in one of his YouTube videos, noted that Paul was almost obsessed with Christ’s death and resurrection (at 3:45 and following). In fact, Paul taught comparatively little about what Christ actually taught. As well, he sees the Gospels as basically focusing upon the death and resurrection, while sprinkling teachings within the pages.

 

[PJM]

=jinc1019;10225298]Very simple question…Why are Paul’s writings considered part of the sacred canon? He obviously was not Jesus and wasn’t there when Jesus made the promises made in Mathew 16 and Mathew 18 to Peter and the other apostles. So why do we take his writings and make them sacred scripture? I am not saying they shouldn’t be (although sometimes I admittedly feel that way), but I am curious what the Early Church reasoning was for this. Thanks in advance.

Justin

Let’s back up a weeee bit

HOW did Paul get chosen?

Who Choose Paul?

Who Guided Pual?

Who GAVE PAUL his Ministry?

NEARLY HALF of the NT is authored by PAUL

Paul was better educated, better trained and more qualified as a MISSIONARY than any other Apostles; and this shows in what God accomplised THROUGH him

Not unlike much if what we see in our day. Paul was a CONVERT! And we have seen the FIRE of conviction BURN brightly here on this FORUM by many such guided souls.

WHY?

BECAUSE IT WAS AND IS GOD’S DECISION. Paul brough insights the others did not have, and GIFTS that God gave him alone for his Minisrty.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[jinc1019]

Paul is also an apostles…in a sense, though called directly by Jesus…also saw fit not to go out on his own and to have fellowship with the Apostles…see Gal 1 and 2.

 

[jinc1019]

Let’s back up a weeee bit

HOW did Paul get chosen?

Who Choose Paul?

Who Guided Pual?

Who GAVE PAUL his Ministry?

NEARLY HALF of the NT is authored by PAUL

Paul was better educated, better trained and more qualified as a MISSIONARY than any other Apostles; and this shows in what God accomplised THROUGH him

Not unlike much if what we see in our day. Paul was a CONVERT! And we have seen the FIRE of conviction BURN brightly here on this FORUM by many such guided souls.

WHY?

BECAUSE IT WAS AND IS GOD’S DECISION. Paul brough insights the others did not have, and GIFTS that God gave him alone for his Minisrty.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

Many of these same arguments you would make about every single Pope in history…Yet, Popes have been wrong on doctrinal issues outside of their infallible teaching office…So this really doesn’t prove anything.

 

[jinc1019]

Why? We have the testimony of Ananias in Damascus (Acts 9:10-19) that he was petitioned directly by the Lord to anoint Saul, as Saul was God’s chosen vessel to carry the Gospel to the nations. As well, Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to ensure that his Gospel was in accord with that of the Twelve (Galatians 2:1-2, 6-10).

Yes but again, the point is being missed. Just because he knew Gospel truths doesn’t mean everything the man ever said was inerrant. Just like the Catholic teaching on the Pope, Paul could have written those letters outside of that infallible apostolic protection. If you think he couldn’t, why? Popes can.