Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[jinc1019]

After doing some research on infallibility vs. inerrancy, I can see why my use of the term infallibility has caused some problems.

Just to clear things up,
What I am saying is this…In order for Paul’s writings to be both inerrant (completely free of error), Paul wouldn’t necessarily have to have infallibility. But, because many of the things Paul teaches are unique to his writings (at least based on the evidence we have today), other than using the argument that the Church is infallible and they say that Paul’s writings are inerrant, why should we believe Paul’s writings are inerrant?

Basically what I am learning from this is that Paul’s inerrant writings are only inerrant because the Church says they are and they are protected with infallibility. On their own, which is to say without the Church’s interpretations, it would be impossible to say whether his teachings were inerrant or not. Correct?

So then, why do Protestants believe Paul’s writings are inerrant?

 

[po18guy]

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.

But we have only Paul’s written words, and they have all been tested by the Church. To a Catholic, nothing else should matter.

 

[po18guy]

After doing some research on infallibility vs. inerrancy, I can see why my use of the term infallibility has caused some problems.

Just to clear things up,
What I am saying is this…In order for Paul’s writings to be both inerrant (completely free of error), Paul wouldn’t necessarily have to have infallibility. But, because many of the things Paul teaches are unique to his writings (at least based on the evidence we have today), other than using the argument that the Church is infallible and they say that Paul’s writings are inerrant, why should we believe Paul’s writings are inerrant?

Basically what I am learning from this is that Paul’s inerrant writings are only inerrant because the Church says they are and they are protected with infallibility. On their own, which is to say without the Church’s interpretations, it would be impossible to say whether his teachings were inerrant or not. Correct?

So then, why do Protestants believe Paul’s writings are inerrant?

Infallibility is a charism given to the successor of Peter and to the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[jinc1019]

Infallibility is a charism given to the successor of Peter and to the Magisterium of the Church.

Ok so then you are agreeing with my assessment above then? That Paul’s writings can only be said to be inerrant because the Church says so. There is no historical reason to guarantee it, correct? If that is the case, why do conservative Protestants believe Paul’s writings are inerrant?

 

[Della]

Ok so then you are agreeing with my assessment above then? That Paul’s writings can only be said to be inerrant because the Church says so. There is no historical reason to guarantee it, correct? If that is the case, why do conservative Protestants believe Paul’s writings are inerrant?

You have drawn incorrect conclusions based, not on what others have stated in the thread, but on your own ideas–which you persist in hanging onto even though we’ve answered your questions. So, no as to there being no historical reasons to “guarantee” Paul’s writings. This leaves us puzzled and unable to help you.

Do you really think the Church would not know whose writings are inerrant and whose aren’t without investigating them in every possible way? The Church isn’t some fly-by-night group of believers who set up on their own initiative. The Church was founded by Christ who promised it would be led into “all truth” by the Holy Spirit. Paul’s writings in no way contradict anything written in the Gospels or the other NT writings by any other Apostle or disciple/partner in ministry of an Apostle.

Apparently, there are passages of Paul’s writings that you don’t like/agree with but unless and until you say what they are, how can we allay your fears about them?

 

[pablope]

pablope;10225814:

Excellent answer. I truly appreciate it.

I suppose you may very well be correct. What then is the difference between inerrancy and infallibility in this case?

?

Infallibility…means incapable of committing error…which the CC already defines for the pope on matters of faith and morals. This is an action word…please keep this in mind.

Inerrancy fo the Bible…means the theological truths (and I think this includes spiritual truths as well) in the Bible are free of errors…it does not mean it is free of grammatical errors, historical errors (subject to human frailty)…etc…that is why, a teaching authority is needed (The Magisterium)…to sort this out…and properly guide the faithful in understanding the Bible.

And this Magisterium must be incapable of error…otherwise…who would you trust? Can you otherwise be sure there is no error in what someone teaches about the Bible?

And that is why…this passage is so important…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Exemplified by Paul in Galatians 2:2…I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

The same question can be asked of you…how can you be sure you are not running the race in vain?

 

[jinc1019]

You have drawn incorrect conclusions based, not on what others have stated in the thread, but on your own ideas–which you persist in hanging onto even though we’ve answered your questions. So, no as to there being no historical reasons to “guarantee” Paul’s writings. This leaves us puzzled and unable to help you.

Do you really think the Church would not know whose writings are inerrant and whose aren’t without investigating them in every possible way? The Church isn’t some fly-by-night group of believers who set up on their own initiative. The Church was founded by Christ who promised it would be led into “all truth” by the Holy Spirit. Paul’s writings in no way contradict anything written in the Gospels or the other NT writings by any other Apostle or disciple/partner in ministry of an Apostle.

Apparently, there are passages of Paul’s writings that you don’t like/agree with but unless and until you say what they are, how can we allay your fears about them?

I actually greatly appreciate your efforts and the efforts of those who have posted here. They have made a great difference.

But it really isn’t about specific things he says, it’s more about the fact that I don’t understand why we should accept his letters as authoritative source at all, other than because the Church says so. If a Pope writes a letter that adds doctrine not found anywhere else, we are not called to accept it unless he does so in a certain narrowly defined way. The same is apparently not true about Paul. We are required to listen to and accept everything we have from the man as inerrant.

All I wanted to know was if there was a reason, based on logic, fact, and history, that we should find Paul’s writings inerrant. There is in one sense; the early Church seemed to accept the writings as true and endorsed them as valid teachings. That was really what I was looking to find out.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019;10226340:

Infallibility…means incapable of committing error…which the CC already defines for the pope on matters of faith and morals. This is an action word…please keep this in mind.

Inerrancy fo the Bible…means the theological truths (and I think this includes spiritual truths as well) in the Bible are free of errors…it does not mean it is free of grammatical errors, historical errors (subject to human frailty)…etc…that is why, a teaching authority is needed (The Magisterium)…to sort this out…and properly guide the faithful in understanding the Bible.

And this Magisterium must be incapable of error…otherwise…who would you trust? Can you otherwise be sure there is no error in what someone teaches about the Bible?

And that is why…this passage is so important…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Exemplified by Paul in Galatians 2:2…I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

The same question can be asked of you…how can you be sure you are not running the race in vain?

Very good definition.

If I could go to an apostle and ask them, I would feel a lot more comfortable about it myself. You are making the Church synonymous with the apostles, and I certainly understand why, but for me, that has always been a MAJOR problem.

 

[Usagi]

jinc1019,

Your question really seems to be one of how the canon was formed at all. Your concerns are not specific to Paul.

Even with the Gospels, though Jesus of course is incapable of error, we are not relying on His own writings but on the writings of four guys, two of whom may never have met Him, and each of whom records some information not backed up by the others. (And that’s the best-case scenario, before you even start getting into questions of whether Matthew and John the evangelists were really Matthew and John the Apostles…)

As you point out, papal infallibility isn’t broad enough to be the reason why I and II Peter are inerrant.

The inspiration of Scripture is a specific thing that does not apply to any other writing. It was accomplished directly by the Holy Spirit working through the various authors. The authority of the Apostles and the Magisterium that followed them was not involved in making Scripture happen, only in confirming the canon later when there were questions, disputes, and spurious writings being introduced.

We have very little data on how the canon was formed – that is, how Christians decided which writings were inspired (and therefore inerrant). It largely seems to have been a process of mass acceptance and use within the liturgy by communities spread all over the known world. (As usual, the “catholic” belief or practice is the one you can find in widely separated places, while innovations and errors tend to be more localized and traceable to a specific origin.)

The core of both the Old and New Testaments seems to have been widely accepted fairly quickly, but there were disputed books on the fringes of both Testaments. The Magisterium doesn’t seem to have seen a need to get directly involved until the late fourth century, when Pope Damasus and several local synods of bishops each produced a canon that largely resembles what we have now. (It’s hard to be completely sure about the Old Testament, because they seemed to divide and name the books differently.) it wasn’t until the Protestants challenged the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanon in the sixteenth century that an ecumenical council (Trent) actually settled the Catholic canon.

As for Paul, except for books like Hebrews that he probably didn’t even write, his writings are among that core that was widely accepted so early that we have no record of any discussions or debates that might have taken place. As was pointed out earlier, Paul’s letters are called “Scriptures” in Peter’s letters, written later in the first century.

Unfortunately, that means your question may be ultimately unanswerable, but historically Paul’s writings are on the “most certain” level when it comes to what Christians have counted as Scripture.

As for Protestants, they have long managed to get along with an inerrant Bible that doesn’t technically have an inerrant table of contents. Some would say that the Holy Spirit assures them personally and individually that the Bible they have is complete. Others would look more to historical acceptance by the faithful – where, as I mentioned, Paul’s writings are on awfully solid ground. Many, just like many Catholics, probably just accept what was handed down to them without really asking why certain books are inspired and others aren’t.

Usagi

 

[po18guy]

Ok so then you are agreeing with my assessment above then? That Paul’s writings can only be said to be inerrant because the Church says so. There is no historical reason to guarantee it, correct? If that is the case, why do conservative Protestants believe Paul’s writings are inerrant?

Having the Catholic as my first faith in my mid-30s, I have no idea in many cases regarding what protestants believe or why they believe it. I get this sense that they hold the bible to have been inevitable and that it was pre-destined to come to them as 66 books through a certain King on a European island. It seems not to matter how it got here, only that it did. Of course, that is Kindergarten theology, but it is extremely popular these days.

 

[jinc1019]

Having the Catholic as my first faith in my mid-30s, I have no idea in many cases regarding what protestants believe or why they believe it. I get this sense that they hold the bible to have been inevitable and that it was pre-destined to come to them as 66 books through a certain King on a European island. It seems not to matter how it got here, only that it did. Of course, that is Kindergarten theology, but it is extremely popular these days.

Thanks for the opinion on the matter. I am not sure that is fair to say of all, or even most, Protestants. I believe many of them take their theology very seriously and have serious reasons why they believe it. But I have no idea what those are.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019,

Your question really seems to be one of how the canon was formed at all. Your concerns are not specific to Paul.

Even with the Gospels, though Jesus of course is incapable of error, we are not relying on His own writings but on the writings of four guys, two of whom may never have met Him, and each of whom records some information not backed up by the others. (And that’s the best-case scenario, before you even start getting into questions of whether Matthew and John the evangelists were really Matthew and John the Apostles…)

As you point out, papal infallibility isn’t broad enough to be the reason why I and II Peter are inerrant.

The inspiration of Scripture is a specific thing that does not apply to any other writing. It was accomplished directly by the Holy Spirit working through the various authors. The authority of the Apostles and the Magisterium that followed them was not involved in making Scripture happen, only in confirming the canon later when there were questions, disputes, and spurious writings being introduced.

We have very little data on how the canon was formed – that is, how Christians decided which writings were inspired (and therefore inerrant). It largely seems to have been a process of mass acceptance and use within the liturgy by communities spread all over the known world. (As usual, the “catholic” belief or practice is the one you can find in widely separated places, while innovations and errors tend to be more localized and traceable to a specific origin.)

The core of both the Old and New Testaments seems to have been widely accepted fairly quickly, but there were disputed books on the fringes of both Testaments. The Magisterium doesn’t seem to have seen a need to get directly involved until the late fourth century, when Pope Damasus and several local synods of bishops each produced a canon that largely resembles what we have now. (It’s hard to be completely sure about the Old Testament, because they seemed to divide and name the books differently.) it wasn’t until the Protestants challenged the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanon in the sixteenth century that an ecumenical council (Trent) actually settled the Catholic canon.

As for Paul, except for books like Hebrews that he probably didn’t even write, his writings are among that core that was widely accepted so early that we have no record of any discussions or debates that might have taken place. As was pointed out earlier, Paul’s letters are called “Scriptures” in Peter’s letters, written later in the first century.

Unfortunately, that means your question may be ultimately unanswerable, but historically Paul’s writings are on the “most certain” level when it comes to what Christians have counted as Scripture.

As for Protestants, they have long managed to get along with an inerrant Bible that doesn’t technically have an inerrant table of contents. Some would say that the Holy Spirit assures them personally and individually that the Bible they have is complete. Others would look more to historical acceptance by the faithful – where, as I mentioned, Paul’s writings are on awfully solid ground. Many, just like many Catholics, probably just accept what was handed down to them without really asking why certain books are inspired and others aren’t.

Usagi

Usagi,
Excellent response, I greatly appreciate it and got a lot out of it.

 

[Della]

I actually greatly appreciate your efforts and the efforts of those who have posted here. They have made a great difference.

But it really isn’t about specific things he says, it’s more about the fact that I don’t understand why we should accept his letters as authoritative source at all, other than because the Church says so. If a Pope writes a letter that adds doctrine not found anywhere else, we are not called to accept it unless he does so in a certain narrowly defined way. The same is apparently not true about Paul. We are required to listen to and accept everything we have from the man as inerrant.

All I wanted to know was if there was a reason, based on logic, fact, and history, that we should find Paul’s writings inerrant. There is in one sense; the early Church seemed to accept the writings as true and endorsed them as valid teachings. That was really what I was looking to find out.

St. Paul did not espouse anything that was not in line with the Gospels nor did he teach any doctrines different from the other Apostles. He may have dealt more with certain concepts, such as the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice in regard to the Mosaic Law, but nothing he wrote was foreign to what the other Apostles were teaching nor “new”.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for the opinion on the matter. I am not sure that is fair to say of all, or even most, Protestants. I believe many of them take their theology very seriously and have serious reasons why they believe it. But I have no idea what those are.

That is the sequence of events that they trust. What else can I say?

 

[Della]

Thanks for the opinion on the matter. I am not sure that is fair to say of all, or even most, Protestants. I believe many of them take their theology very seriously and have serious reasons why they believe it. But I have no idea what those are.

As a former “Bible believing” Christian I can say that we never considered how we got the Bible–truly. Many of the mainline Protestant churches do know that the canon was established by the Church, but they simply gloss over that historical fact by saying that it was God’s will and would have come about no matter who had compiled it–an argument I can’t find convincing. I left my mainline church as a young teen and knew nothing about the origins of the Bible because I was never told anything about it in all the 13 years I’d been a member of that eccelsial community. There is a lot of ignorance, some of it deliberate, I’m afraid, in the Protestant churches, especially those that broke away from the mainline Protestant churches to form their own with nothing but a Bible and a few people willing to do it

 

[PJM]

=jinc1019;10226349]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.

So I guess the logical question is DO YOU actually understand what an infallibe proclaimation is and requires?

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

1. It pertains to ONLY matter of Faith and or Morals
2. It MUST be specefied as being an Infallible pronouncement [and apply world wide]

So my friend, from that understanding please enlighten me with examples of past “Infabbile Pronouncements”.

And what "Doctrinal issues do you have evidence of that have been wrong again they MUST relate to Faith beliefs and or Morals ONLY. Again a Doctrine is a Defined and Oficially declaried TRUTH.

IF you can be specific I’d be happy to discuss this matter further.

God Bless,
Pat/PJM

 

[jinc1019]

St. Paul did not espouse anything that was not in line with the Gospels nor did he teach any doctrines different from the other Apostles. He may have dealt more with certain concepts, such as the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice in regard to the Mosaic Law, but nothing he wrote was foreign to what the other Apostles were teaching nor “new”.

Well historically speaking, this is not true. Nowhere else in the New Testament is it mentioned that women should be silent in Church, for instance, or that kings are selected by God and only punish those who are truly guilty. Paul has some very unique ideas in that sense and in many other areas as well. This doesn’t mean the other apostles didn’t teach these things, just that we don’t have any evidence of anyone else, including Jesus, saying those kinds of things.

 

[jinc1019]

As a former “Bible believing” Christian I can say that we never considered how we got the Bible–truly. Many of the mainline Protestant churches do know that the canon was established by the Church, but they simply gloss over that historical fact by saying that it was God’s will and would have come about no matter who had compiled it–an argument I can’t find convincing. I left my mainline church as a young teen and knew nothing about the origins of the Bible because I was never told anything about it in all the 13 years I’d been a member of that eccelsial community. There is a lot of ignorance, some of it deliberate, I’m afraid, in the Protestant churches, especially those that broke away from the mainline Protestant churches to form their own with nothing but a Bible and a few people willing to do it

In fairness to all other churches, I grew up in the Catholic Church only…my family is almost exclusively Catholic, and until I was in my early 20s, I knew nothing about the vast majority of true Catholic teachings.

 

[jinc1019]

So I guess the logical question is DO YOU actually understand what an infallibe proclaimation is and requires?

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

1. It pertains to ONLY matter of Faith and or Morals
2. It MUST be specefied as being an Infallible pronouncement [and apply world wide]

So my friend, from that understanding please enlighten me with examples of past “Infabbile Pronouncements”.

And what "Doctrinal issues do you have evidence of that have been wrong [again they MUST relate to Faith beliefs and or Morals ONLY. Again a Doctrine is a Defined and Oficially declaried TRUTH.

IF you can be specific I’d be happy to discuss this matter further.

God Bless,
Pat/PJM

First of all, I know what the Church teaches on this topic very well and have debated it many, many, many times. I don’t have any desire to debate the Catholic teaching on infallibility.

So, in fairness to you, I will submit everything you just said is an accurate representation of what the Catholic Church teaches. I believe that it is.

My point is NOT to say that the Pope has taught errors, at least not in this thread, so I think you have missed my point entirely.

I will try to explain it clearly again.

As you mentioned, the Pope can teach many things, but can only teach infallibly when all those criteria above are in place. I agree that’s what the Catholic Church teaches. This substantiates my view, not rips it apart. The Catholic Church teaches that Popes ARE capable of teaching error, just not when they are teaching with all the criteria in place you mentioned above, because when they teach with all of those criteria, they do so with the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit. But the Church readily admits many Popes have taught UNTRUE things. Some Popes, at least one, have been excommunicated after they were dead, for instance.

So my point is this…if the Pope can teach untrue things, so can Paul. The Catholic Church doesn’t disagree, they argue Paul is not infallible. They do argue, however, that Paul’s writings are inerrant, and my point is, what is that based on? Why do they believe his letters are inerrant and represent the Word of God? Not everything the Pope says is true, so why should I believe everything Paul said is?

Now some have pointed out that the Early Church supported Paul’s letters as true, and the evidence of that is actually quite convincing. But other than that, and the argument that we should know it is true because the Church says so, is really all that exists. And up until I saw the evidence about the Early Church supporting those documents, I didn’t even have that.

The problem I still have though is that in the same way Catholics today recognize not EVERYTHING Augustine wrote or St. Jerome wrote is 100% infallibly the Word of God, how do we know what Paul wrote is? Just because the Early Church signed off on it doesn’t mean it is really the Word of God.
[/quote]

 

[pablope]

Who says you cannot? Do you believe they are in heaven? And if they are in heaven, are they alive or dead?

And if they are alive in heaven…you can pray to them to resolve you doubt.

Your issue seems to be…you do not trust anyone today…you have doubts…so you only trust yourself…did I get this right?

You are making the Church synonymous with the apostles, and I certainly understand why, but for me, that has always been a MAJOR problem.

One of the four marks of the Church…from early on…and what the early Christians knew of the true church…was it was “Apostolic”…and is in the Creeds.

Do you think this is still true today?