Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[RolandJS]

Greeting fellow Christians!
Catholics and nonCatholics alike

Based on my reading (outside and inside discussion boards):
Prima scriptura = scriptures first, then all other rules
SolA scriptura = Scripture is the only infallible rule, Scripture is not the only rule
SolO scriptura = definitely bad Latin and bad practice, solO is oft:
“me and the Bible.”

I’ve learned that trueblue Prima and Sola Scripture MUST include, for the average Christian (including ME), the Word of God in print (or audio) in the language best understood, a common-sense magisterium and a common-sense tradition. Bible references and resources are a must, consultations with learned Christians are a must – to build up one’s knowledge and understanding of one’s Belief Set, Doctrines and so on.

Our Catholic brethren and sistern definitely have much going for them concerning their trinity: Tradition, Magisterium and Scripture.

Protestant and non-align brethren and sistern probably would do better to admit having some sort of magisterium and tradition along with Scripture.

In summary:
Iit needs to be God the Holy Spirit, Word of God (print or audio) in my language, common sense references and resources and consultations with fellow Christians who know and understand lots more about Christendom than I.

Roland
AmbassadorMan
ps: My in-home reading’s going to include strong Catholic material to increase my knowledge and understanding of a major portion of Christendom.

 

[bob]

Sherlock:

Kinsman,

You wrote: “My statement is easily refuted by simply supplying me with the quotes and list of all the people and things the early Church writers deemed infallible.”

I didn’t see this post until later, and I won’t have time to address it this weekend—hopefully tomorrow (Monday) evening I can get to it. But the nature of your question shows a rather flawed concept of the development of doctrine. Have you ever read Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” ? I’ve just started reading it, and can see already why it is considered a classic, even by Protestants. Perhaps it would aid your understanding of doctrine to read this.

You still haven’t addressed the points I have made in previous points, and it is hard not to notice that you’ve skippped around the questions and points posed by others such as Catholic4aReasn and Bob. I can see a pattern developing: instead of answering the questions, you focus on a few trees and hope that no one notices that you’re still denying the existence of the forest. Case in point is this lovely little demonstration: “So tell me, when did Philip, who wasn’t even an Apostle, become Pope? And if not Pope, when did he become a Bishop of the Roman church? From what I read of him in the Book of Acts he never went to Rome. And I’ve yet to read in any history books that he settled in that city. In fact, when Philip met the Ethiopian there was not as yet a recognized church assembly in Rome. The Gospel message was just making it to Samaria.”

Do you really think that stringing together a number of little straw men “arguments” such as you have done here is a substitute for answering difficult questions?

May add avoiding BobCatholic and RNRoberts questions and scores of others as well.

That’s what he has been doing throughout this thread - giving evasive, off tangent answers or none at all instead of what was asked.

In short, beating around the bush.

 

[Kinsman]

Sherlock:

Karl Keating isn’t defining and teaching doctrine with the authority of the Magisterium. The Magisterium does that. Karl Keating is presenting what the Magisterium has already taught, and his correctness can be determined by comparing what he says with what the Magisterium teaches .

Thank you! And that my friend is exactly what z
“Protestants” do with the written Word of God. God’s Word, not man’s, is our “Magesterium.” And we compare what men say with what God has already said in His Holy written Word. The difference is we KNOW the teachings within Scripture are infallible, being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. But you can only assert that in regards to your institution made up of fallible men. “Ohhhhh,” but you say, “you have divergent interpretations.” But if your magesterium was so perfectly clear you wouldn’t need people like Karl Keating and his radio show. And you wouldn’t need books like “Mass Confusion.” And then you still have to wonder, what makes Karl Keating’s interpretation of the Magesterium’s interpretation correct? I’ve listened to his show, Catholics refute him at times. And there are all sorts of diverse teachings within the Roman church itself. To claim that it’s a monolithic religion, and has historically always been monolithic, is false indeed.

 

[Kinsman]

Sherlock:

Do you really think that stringing together a number of little straw men “arguments” such as you have done here is a substitute for answering difficult questions?

Right, just like the way you always dismiss the content of my posts with a condescending, snide remark? Calling my arguments "straw men" means absolutely nothing. That’s a personal opinion, not a defense. I’ve answered many of the questions posted to me. I’m only one person amongst many of you, you know. Poor babies, I can’t give you all special attention. Many of the questions are just repeated over and over again anyway (which I’d already addressed in a previous post), but the person thinks because he or she asked it, it’s new and profound. And some simply refuse to think anything through, but just want to give a quick response. They don’t deserve an answer. I enjoy an intelligent debate, not just quick responses with a barrage of shallow questions.

But the nature of your question shows a rather flawed concept of the development of doctrine.

You’ve just started reading a book on doctrinal development and you’re already an expert and able to judge another’s knowledge? Interesting.

 

[Kinsman]

bob:

My original post has TWO points:

1. Where is God’s Written Word about Jesus at this stage? The interpretation of Scriptures and the teachings about Jesus by Philip was based on Tradition which existed BEFORE the entire NT was even penned.This “point” makes no sense in respect to the issue of sola Scriptura. The Christian faith is based on historical accounts. That is, things that actually happened in history, like the birth, death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The account of Philip and the Ethiopian is historical and the historian, Luke, records it in his divinely inspired writings. We have this account today not because it was passed down by word of mouth but because it was hard-copied in Scripture. Bob, obviously ALL historical events exist before they’re penned by the historian. And the Bible is not some mystical Book based on esoteric writings about nothing. Yes, Philip was taught by the Apostles. He lived in the Apostolic age. The whole Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets, Jesus Christ its cornerstone. But God didn’t leave us without a witness after the Apostles died, he gave us His written Word, the divine Scriptures in which contain the historical events and the Apostolic teachings which explain the faith.

1. Again I say to you:

The Catholic Church put the Bible together - the Protestants ripped it apart.WHO is attacking the Word of God?Your wording is incorrect. The “Catholic” Church didn’t put the Bible together. Certainly not the Roman church. And the apocrypha was rejected because it had long been recognized by Godly men that they weren’t inspired writings. But the rejection of those books did nothing to change the historic, Biblical doctrines regarding faith in Jesus Christ. Nor does the acceptance of them change the content of the faith. They’re just not inspired writings and don’t belong in the canon of Scripture. They’ve got some historical value, but they’re not Scripture. Nothing was “ripped” apart by anyone. Don’t be so dramatic about it.

The teaching of the Word was entrusted to the church under the leadership of Peter - “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…”

Acts 15:7.Peter’s first recorded decision as a leader of the Church.As I pointed out in another post, Peter contributed to the discussion, but he did not make the final decision. Nor did he preside over the Jerusalem council. It was James, the half brother of the Lord. Peter and Paul were part of the decision making process, but the final judgment was left to James (see Acts 15:19).

Now, you’ve got your two questions answered. Be at peace.

 

[Sherlock]

Kinsman,

I don’t have a lot of time this morning, so I won’t be able to address everything in your posts during the day. Perhaps this evening…

Anyway, a few quick responses:

You wrote: “Calling my arguments “straw men” means absolutely nothing. That’s a personal opinion, not a defense.”

Actually, a “straw-man” is a type of fallacious argument. The “straw men” you presented in the paragraph that I referred to are as follows:

1.“So tell me, when did Philip, who wasn’t even an Apostle, become Pope?”----No one has claimed, as a basis for their argument, that he was.

1. “From what I read of him in the Book of Acts he never went to Rome.”—No one has claimed, as a basis for their argument, that he did.
2. “And I’ve yet to read in any history books that he settled in that city.”—No one has claimed, as a basis for their argument, that he did.
3. “In fact, when Philip met the Ethiopian there was not as yet a recognized church assembly in Rome.”----No one has claimed, as a basis for their argument, that there was.

So, that is why I referred to these as straw-man arguments—because they are exactly that.

You wrote: “You’ve just started reading a book on doctrinal development and you’re already an expert and able to judge another’s knowledge? Interesting.”

And this would be an example of an ad hominem argument. Yes, I have started to read a book on doctrinal development that is considered a classic on the topic. This fact says nothing about my interest in and study of the topic prior to my beginning this book, though you imply that it does, and that there was none. On what do you base this opinion? Also, I have never claimed to be an expert on this or any other topic on this forum—why do you claim that I have presented myself as such? As for being able to judge another’s knowledge…that reflects assessments and judgements that we all make of others when debating any subject, engaging in conversation, or going about the business of daily life. So, there I am guilty as charged. I call it using common sense.

 

[RolandJS]

Hi! Since I’m in two Sola Scriptura threads, I’m going to combine my (name removed by moderator)ut into one new thread, Friendship Table

Then, I can better keep up with you all!

Roland
AmbassadorMan

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

Thank you! And that my friend is exactly what z
“Protestants” do with the written Word of God. God’s Word, not man’s, is our “Magesterium.”

Nah, that’s not the same thing at all.Protestant interpret scripture for themselves. All Karl Keating does is restate what the Church has always taught.

The difference is we KNOW the teachings within Scripture are infallible, being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself.

We’d agree with you there. What we also know is that conflicting and contradictory interpretations cannot all be correct at the same time.

But you can only assert that in regards to your institution made up of fallible men. “Ohhhhh,” but you say, “you have divergent interpretations.” But if your magesterium was so perfectly clear you wouldn’t need people like Karl Keating and his radio show.

I don’t recall anyone ever claiming that the language used by the Magesterium is so perfectly clear. Please cut and paste where I missed that.

You see, papal infallibility doesn’t cover how a teaching is worded or how clearly it is stated. It just assures us that what IS taught won’t be in error.

Protestant contradictions in doctrine have nothing whatsoever to do with the clarity of the wording of Magesterial teaching. If this is not a red herring please explain what one has to do with the other.

And then you still have to wonder, what makes Karl Keating’s interpretation of the Magesterium’s interpretation correct?

He’s not interpreting, he’s restating.

And there are all sorts of diverse teachings within the Roman church itself.

Never on things that have been dogmatically defined. Never, ever in 2000 years, praise God!! Since you’ve make the accusation it is incumbant upon you to offer evidence. Since your claim is that there are “all sorts” of diverse teachings within the Church, and you certainly wouldn’t make the claim without being personally aware of these diversities, please provide only 3 examples of dogmatically defined deversities taught in the Church. Please make sure they are actual teachings, not misunderstandings of teaching, and not practices/disciplines. Please also provide authentic documentation.

If you are not able to provide this information please recant your claim.

I look forward to your answer.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Sherlock]

Catholic4aReasn,

Great post!

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

This “point” makes no sense in respect to the issue of sola Scriptura. The Christian faith is based on historical accounts. That is, things that actually happened in history, like the birth, death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The account of Philip and the Ethiopian is historical and the historian, Luke, records it in his divinely inspired writings. We have this account today not because it was passed down by word of mouth but because it was hard-copied in Scripture. Bob, obviously ALL historical events exist before they’re penned by the historian. And the Bible is not some mystical Book based on esoteric writings about nothing. Yes, Philip was taught by the Apostles. He lived in the Apostolic age. The whole Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets, Jesus Christ its cornerstone. But God didn’t leave us without a witness after the Apostles died, he gave us His written Word, the divine Scriptures in which contain the historical events and the Apostolic teachings which explain the faith.

.
The “Point” which you fail to see is that Scripture needs to be taught, to be explained. Sola Scriptura which you profess is that Scripture is self explanatory. It is between the Bible, you and the Holy Spirit.
And this is what you had intended to show by saying:

“Philip was neither the Pope of Rome nor was he ever a Bishop of that church. He was a simple, Godly, layman, a Jew, previously chosen to supervise over the waiting on tables whom the Holy Spirit, Himself, sovereignly chose to do mighty things through him (Acts 6 & 8).”

Your intention of severing all connections Philip had with the Church leaving only the Holy Spirit shows what you were getting at.

Kinsman:

Your wording is incorrect. The “Catholic” Church didn’t put the Bible together. Certainly not the Roman church.

And who may I ask were St. Jerome and Pope Damascus? Protestants?
Or do you mean these “churches”? Why the emphasis on plural?

Kinsman:

… The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) simply expressed, or ratified, what had already become the unanimous judgment of the churches (plural) where those writings were already regarded as divinely inspired and authoritative…

Kinsman:

And the apocrypha was rejected because it had long been recognized by Godly men that they weren’t inspired writings… Nothing was “ripped” apart by anyone. Don’t be so dramatic about it.

Pray tell who these Godly men were. They must have slept for 1500 years till Luther came along or they were not convinced of their rejection.
Chrit promised His Church that He will be with them till the end of time.
Did He forget His promise or did He also sleep for 1500 years just in time to awaken Luther?

Who selected the right copies of scriptures to be accepted as inspired? Why did the Church reject these books below as apocryphal? Did the Scriptures say they were? Did the same Godly men not include them?

Epistle of Barnabas
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Book of Enoch
Gospel of Thomas (140-170 AD)
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs
Second Baruch
Third Baruch
The Books of Adam and Eve
etc.

Basically where does scripture say which books are inspired and which are not?

The confusion was sorted out by the Church instituted by Christ.

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) simply expressed, or ratified, what had already become the unanimous judgment of the churches (plural) where those writings were already regarded as divinely inspired and authoritative…

Kinsman:

And the apocrypha was rejected because it had long been recognized by Godly men that they weren’t inspired writings… Nothing was “ripped” apart by anyone. Don’t be so dramatic about it…

Were the Councils of Hippo and Carthage made up of Godly men?
They must be as you seem to accept them.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Here I go, jumping into an already lengthy thread that hasn’t been updated in over a month.

Well, anyway. One evangelical cites
Revelation 22: 18-19 as the basis for sola scriptura:

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. (NAB)

So, this well-known radio personality from Oakland CA extends these verses from just the book of Rev to the entire Bible.

And, he frequent refrain is " The Bible alone and in its entirety is the word of God." And, this is compelling for a lot of people who are not thinking logically or historically.

And, it is interesting that there is a parallel verse in the OT, which would lead you to think that the Bible should have ended back then, too, to wit:

Deut 4:2 In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it. (NAB)

So, according to this, there are no other commands of God to be followed. Right?

There’s your *sola scriptura * for you. It collapses on itself, in the first place.
I heard this radio “teacher” says these things so many times, that I can piece this together with my word search Bible program.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RNRobert:

I define fractured as:
One denomination saying you must be baptized to be saved and other saying you don’t.
One denomination saying Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and one saying it’s only a memorial supper.
One denomination saying you can’t lose your salvation and another saying yes you can.
One denomination saying that people are predestined to heaven and hell and another saying that people chose to be saved or damned.
Christians who claim to love the Lord and believe in the Bible, yet cannot agree on what the Bible teaches, nor will they meet in the same building to worship.

The Catholic church has many Rites and traditions, but they are all in agreement regarding doctrine.

I define the Church as the body of Christ. II Paradox II (and I’m sure you and many other sincere Protestants) agrees with me that the division of Christianity is a shame. As St. Paul asks the Corinthians “Is Christ divided (1 Cor 1:13)?” One could almost borrow the previous verse to say "I am of Luther, I am of Calvin, I am of Wesley, etc, etc), Which is what Protestantism is today and what Paul condemned.

I can make some of the same assumptions about Catholics in that while the magisterium and Pope declare a certain teaching, the majority of the Catholic people believe otherwise and believe it needs to be changed. Are you assuming that all Catholics follow the Catholic teaching? The same parallel exists in protestant churches - the only difference is that members will leave to join another while the Catholic stays because he is afraid he will lose his salvation.

 

[RNRobert]

ahimsaman72:

I can make some of the same assumptions about Catholics in that while the magisterium and Pope declare a certain teaching, the majority of the Catholic people believe otherwise and believe it needs to be changed. Are you assuming that all Catholics follow the Catholic teaching? The same parallel exists in protestant churches - the only difference is that members will leave to join another while the Catholic stays because he is afraid he will lose his salvation.

Sadly, many Catholics disobey the teaching of the Church. However, this does not detract one whit from the authority of the Pope and magisterium. Jesus gave the Apostles and their successors authority over the Church and told them “Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16 NAB). When Paul told the Corinthians to expel the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife from their church, he wasn’t giving a suggestion, he was giving them an order and expected to be obeyed (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)
We should not be surprised when Catholics act contrary to the teaching of the Pope. If many of Jesus’ disciples did not listen to him, (Luke 6:46; John 6:60-66), should we not expect some in the church to act likewise to shepherds Jesus appointed over us?
As for many of those lukewarm Catholics who remain in the church, I seriously doubt they stay because they are afraid of losing their salvation. Probably many stay because they were raised in the church and still remain due to habit. Some are no doubt the “ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15) that Jesus foretold would try to destroy the Church from within. Others may be well-intentioned souls who think that the Church is “out-of-date” and needs to be “modernized.”

 

[ahimsaman72]

RNRobert:

Sadly, many Catholics disobey the teaching of the Church. However, this does not detract one whit from the authority of the Pope and magisterium. Jesus gave the Apostles and their successors authority over the Church and told them “Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16 NAB). When Paul told the Corinthians to expel the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife from their church, he wasn’t giving a suggestion, he was giving them an order and expected to be obeyed (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)
We should not be surprised when Catholics act contrary to the teaching of the Pope. If many of Jesus’ disciples did not listen to him, (Luke 6:46; John 6:60-66), should we not expect some in the church to act likewise to shepherds Jesus appointed over us?
As for many of those lukewarm Catholics who remain in the church, I seriously doubt they stay because they are afraid of losing their salvation. Probably many stay because they were raised in the church and still remain due to habit. Some are no doubt the “ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15) that Jesus foretold would try to destroy the Church from within. Others may be well-intentioned souls who think that the Church is “out-of-date” and needs to be “modernized.”

I’m not talking about people who don’t follow the teaching, I’m talking about people who don’t BELIEVE the teaching to begin with - has nothing to do with the situation you quoted above with the man sleeping with his father’s wife.

It’s funny that you mention Paul giving the church an order and expecting them to obey. I’ve often wondered (even with verses that SEEM to elevate Peter above the others) why Paul is rarely mentioned or considered with Catholics. Paul obviously wrote most of the NT and started and developed many churches throughout Asia. Yet, because of Matt. 16:18, the Catholic Church puts more emphasis on Peter.

Something is wrong here. The rule of thumb when interpreting Scriptures is that if one part seems to contradict another part - then you must look deeper at that matter and make sure you are not interpreting it wrong. The Bible is cohesive throughout. It will not really contradict itself. I believe you would agree.

By the way, as I write this, I am teetering on the edge of converting to Catholicism. I’m merely playing “devil’s advocate” till I figure some things out, so don’t take me as being anti-Catholic. I remain open to views from both sides.

God bless!

 

[ahimsaman72]

BayCityRickL:

And, it is interesting that there is a parallel verse in the OT, which would lead you to think that the Bible should have ended back then, too, to wit:

Deut 4:2 In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it. (NAB)

So, according to this, there are no other commands of God to be followed. Right?

There’s your *sola scriptura *for you. It collapses on itself, in the first place.
I heard this radio “teacher” says these things so many times, that I can piece this together with my word search Bible program.

Without even looking this up, I would say that the context in Deut. is such that Moses is giving commandments to Israel that God gave him. He didn’t want anyone else coming along and adding or taking away from what was given him.

 

[RNRobert]

ahimsaman72:

I’m not talking about people who don’t follow the teaching, I’m talking about people who don’t BELIEVE the teaching to begin with - has nothing to do with the situation you quoted above with the man sleeping with his father’s wife.

As Jesus pointed out in the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30), there will be those in the church who do not belong to Jesus. Jesus asked his followers “Why do you call me ‘Lord,’ ‘Lord’, and not do what I tell you?” And in the 6th chapter of John, His disciples murmured when Jesus gave the Bread of Life discourse and many left him. So, we shouldn’t be too surprised when modern day Catholics don’t believe what His Church teaches.

ahimsaman72:

It’s funny that you mention Paul giving the church an order and expecting them to obey. I’ve often wondered (even with verses that SEEM to elevate Peter above the others) why Paul is rarely mentioned or considered with Catholics. Paul obviously wrote most of the NT and started and developed many churches throughout Asia. Yet, because of Matt. 16:18, the Catholic Church puts more emphasis on Peter.

Something is wrong here. The rule of thumb when interpreting Scriptures is that if one part seems to contradict another part - then you must look deeper at that matter and make sure you are not interpreting it wrong. The Bible is cohesive throughout. It will not really contradict itself. I believe you would agree.

I’m no scripture scholar, but it could be that the reason Paul wrote more was that he was more educated than Peter. Plus in the book of Acts, it seemed as the church expanded, Paul took on more of the missionary work. From looking at the beginning of the Book of Acts, we see that Peter was the leader (In speaking to the Jews at pentecost, in bringing Gentiles into the Church, at the Council of Jerusalem).

ahimsaman72:

By the way, as I write this, I am teetering on the edge of converting to Catholicism. I’m merely playing “devil’s advocate” till I figure some things out, so don’t take me as being anti-Catholic. I remain open to views from both sides.

God bless!

I can understand your position. I was a former Protestant who at one time had a strong anti-catholic bias, and I played devil’s advocate for a long time before entering the Church. Please feel free to ask questions: Either I or other Catholics will be happy to answer any questions you have!

 

[ahimsaman72]

RNRobert:

As Jesus pointed out in the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30), there will be those in the church who do not belong to Jesus. Jesus asked his followers “Why do you call me ‘Lord,’ ‘Lord’, and not do what I tell you?” And in the 6th chapter of John, His disciples murmured when Jesus gave the Bread of Life discourse and many left him. So, we shouldn’t be too surprised when modern day Catholics don’t believe what His Church teaches.

I’m no scripture scholar, but it could be that the reason Paul wrote more was that he was more educated than Peter. Plus in the book of Acts, it seemed as the church expanded, Paul took on more of the missionary work. From looking at the beginning of the Book of Acts, we see that Peter was the leader (In speaking to the Jews at pentecost, in bringing Gentiles into the Church, at the Council of Jerusalem).

I can understand your position. I was a former Protestant who at one time had a strong anti-catholic bias, and I played devil’s advocate for a long time before entering the Church. Please feel free to ask questions: Either I or other Catholics will be happy to answer any questions you have!

Yes, it’s true that Paul was highly educated. And, right again - he went on missionary journeys spreading the gospel.

On the other hand, Peter was a simple fisherman that really spoke from his heart. I admire him alot. He was (by nature) a very outspoken person as can be seen by references to him throughout the gospels. He was “quite a guy”.

Thanks for being there and willingness to help.

God bless…

 

[RNRobert]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for being there and willingness to help.

God bless…

You’re welcome! I hope your journey leads you into the fullness of the Catholic faith. Again, feel free to ask questions.

 

[peacemaker]

Even the thought of rejecting solo scriptura feels like hearasy to a Protestant. Just beginning the dialogue is refreshing however. Can a Catholic consider rejecting the dogma of the church? ie Mary’s sinless life? Her continual virginity? Can tradition ever be wrong? What if there really is no apostolic succession and this deposit was wrong from the beginning? Could Paul have replaced Matthias as chosen by the Holy Spirit and not by men? Could Paul have ascendancy in New Testament theology? Just questions not anwers - Praise God for discussion and search for truth.