HELP, Concerning Paul's Authority.

If you can accept that the OT prophets spoke with the authority of God, why would you not accept that a NT apostle could speak with the same authority? Given Dr Moo's expertise I would accept his word unless I had very strong evidence that he was mistaken.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206893#Comment_206893

why would you not accept that a NT apostle could speak with the same authority?

Please understand. I started this search in an attempt to support Paul's authority. I have high regard for Dr. Moo. He has just taken the discussion to a level that I had not pondered before. I thought I explained why is see a difference. ... The Lack of a "Thus Saith The Lord"

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206894#Comment_206894

why would you not accept that a NT apostle could speak with the same authority?

Please understand. I started this search in an attempt to support Paul's authority. I have high regard for Dr. Moo. He has just taken the discussion to a level that I had not pondered before. I thought I explained why is see a difference. ... The Lack of a "Thus Saith The Lord"

To me, a called apostle of Jesus Christ is the same thing as a thus saith the Lord. If you want more information, do a search for apostle in your Library, especially the dictionaries and encyclopedias.

EIDT: I reread this immediately after posting and noticed that is may sound much more harsh than I intended. Please don't take offense. Do make a wider search than you have read so far. I have done that over the years and reached the conclusion that I agree with Moo.

spitzerpl

Take a look at 2 Peter 3:14-16. Especially note the phrases Paul wrote....the other scriptures. Peter seemed to place Paul's writings on par with other scriptures, which I personally take to mean the old Testament. Since my view of inspiration holds that what they wrote had the full endorsement of God as His own words I would contend that His words did bear the weight of the authority of God.

Additionally, along with God's calling Paul as an apostle came the God endorsed authority of the position. God gave Paul the calling to speak on his behalf (Apostle means sent one...he was sent to give a message). Along with that calling came a special ministry of the Holy Spirit to fulfill its obligations. Caution must be made here, though. Taking this to the extreme of saying Paul was perfect in his execution of his calling would indeed be an extreme.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206899#Comment_206899

Taking this to the extreme of saying Paul was perfect in his execution of his calling would indeed be an extreme.

Good point. I believe Paul's Epistles carry apostolic authority. However, I do not believe that his every action in Acts carries the same authority.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206902#Comment_206902

Here is a really good summation:

The Pauline writings demonstrate two characteristic usages of the word “apostle.” On occasion, it refers to persons authorized by local congregations and entrusted with the safe delivery of specific gifts for other members of the Christian community (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). More important are those passages where “apostle” takes on a more technical sense through the qualifying phrase “of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 11:13; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thes 2:6). The “sent one” is the “sent one of Jesus Christ” (Rom 16:7; 1 Cor 9:1, 5; 12:28; Gal 1:17–19). In the statements where Paul claims his own right to this title, he argues along lines assuming the same basic apostolic concept that Jesus had. He consistently links this claim to a specific event in the past in which the risen Lord had appeared to him (1 Cor 9:1; Gal 1:12, 16). This appearance he ranked alongside those of the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:3–8). Paul understood his experience outside Damascus (cf. Acts 9:1–19a; 22:6–16; 26:12–18; Gal 1:17) as a lifelong commission to preach the now-resurrected One (1 Cor 1:17; 2:1–2) chiefly among the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 22:15; 26:17, 23; Gal 1:15–16). It was through his preaching ministry that Christ continued to work, creating the new people of God (1 Cor 9:1–2; Gal 2:8).

Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale reference library (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 96.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206902#Comment_206902

Taking this to the extreme of saying Paul was perfect in his execution of his calling would indeed be an extreme.

Good point. I believe Paul's Epistles carry apostolic authority. However, I do not believe that his every action in Acts carries the same authority.

Paul made a good point about this line of thinking in his simple statement:

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1

DMB

Well, I kind of doubt the 'New Age' theology relative to Paul is that new, if you read Ehrman. Apparently it goes back almost 2000 years. I had the same question and eventually ended up getting a book on Paul, presenting both sides of the issue (of which there are many). That didn't really solve the problem, so I mapped out what Jesus said and then went through Paul's writings in the sequence likely written. That approach was arguable, so I eventually had to backtrack to Deuteronomy and God's three 'tests' for someone claiming to speak for God. This forum isn't the place for theology so I won't give the answer, but it's easy enough to find doing a Logos search.

Graham Owen

Recently, a very dear nephew has been drawn in to the new age "theology" that questions Paul's authority.

This has been a challenge for the Church throughout history because whenever someone's beliefs about God do not match the writing in the Canon the natural answer is to attack the Canon. Paul is not alone in being attacked but it's important that we understand that the motive for attacking his authority is to undermine the teaching that his writings contain. This leads to the question what specific teaching or teachings do the specific "new age" theologians in question want to remove from the Canon. This is important because it will help you to identify other books of the Bible that may be at risk.

In my opinion a good starting place for you would be to use the Systematic Theologies in your library to look at the authority of the Canon and and the arguments for the inclusion of the individual books you can use this to help your nephew understand the key principle that the 66 books stand together as one (the big picture) within this you could then focus specifically on Paul. The book of Act supports Paul's role as a leader in the early Church as do the comments made by Peter, I would suggest that you prepare for an attack on Luke's authority because this would be a natural counter attack.

You could also check out any books you have on apologetics like:

Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

These will help you build a broader and stronger argument and specifically will help you focus on preparing for a range of counter arguments.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206902#Comment_206902

Taking this to the extreme of saying Paul was perfect in his execution of his calling would indeed be an extreme.

Good point. I believe Paul's Epistles carry apostolic authority. However, I do not believe that his every action in Acts carries the same authority.

This is the grey area that I wanted to address.

Another interesting text I feel supports Paul's apostleship is: Revelation 2:1-2 Here Christ is dictating what John should write. He commends the church at Ephesus for their ability to sniff out and reject false apostles. Ephesians begins by Paul claiming to be an apostle. If it were not true, they would have been the first to reject his instruction.

I guess what troubles me is: Satan's fall was caused by his desire to "Be Like God" He tempted Eve with the same promise. Gen 3:5 I am fully aware that Dr.Moo is not implying that Paul ever desired to be like God. But saying that his words have the authority of God enters into that grey area.

I sincerely appreciate all your input...Your attempts to help me work through this issue.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206971#Comment_206971

I would suggest that you prepare for an attack on Luke's authority because this would be a natural counter attack.

Yes. We have already started down that slippery slope. If you can't trust Luke's writings in acts, then the Gospel of Luke is in question. If walking with Christ is the defining factor, Acts 1:21 then Mark doesn't qualify. None of the Old Testament writers walked with Christ, So, Can we trust them? Peter upholds Paul's writings 2 Peter 3:14-18 so is he now untrustworthy. If we continue down this rabbit hole, what's left of the Bible will fit on one sheet of paper.

And as you say...that is the ultimate goal.

Rosie Perera

"Thus saith the Lord" is an Old Testament prophetic forumula. Its absence does not mean the words should be taken any less as the word of God. There are other reasons why we take Scripture, which was written by men, God's authoritative word.

Something to search for in your Logos library to shed light on this question would be: "Bible, Authority of" OR "Scripture, Authority of"

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206983#Comment_206983

I would suggest that you prepare for an attack on Luke's authority because this would be a natural counter attack.

Yes. We have already started down that slippery slope

Do you have Normal Geisler's Apologetics Library The Norman L. Geisler Apologetics Library ? or "When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences" by the same author? That latter resource has a chapter on Questions About the Bible which deals with the same subject as this thread (not just for Paul's writings, but for the Bible as a whole).

"When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences" is part of the Apologetics Library.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207003#Comment_207003

Do you have Normal Geisler's Apologetics Library The Norman L. Geisler Apologetics Library ?

NOT YET ! [:P]...EDIT: Now I Do [:D]

I suspect it will be in the pipeline soon. I have been intrigued by his ideas for quite some time. I appreciate the fact that he has rejected predestination, as Calvin knew it. I must admit I would like to know how he threads that needle ... Rejecting a foundational doctrine, while still claiming to be a Calvinist. I have spent a small fortune in the last month, but the Apologetics Library seems to be a "necessity" for my current study. Chosen But Free will have to wait for another shopping spree. Maybe my piggy bank will have recovered by the time Logos offers it [:)]

Thanks again for your input.

Jim Carlile

I like to look to the Bible to indicate answers to thing like this.Besides Rom 1:1, Paul refers to himself as an Apostle in the first verse of the first chapter in 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal., Eph., Col, 1 Tim., 2 Tim. and Titus. There is also support for Paul's calling and mission in a number of places in Acts:

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. 9:28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

ACTS 15:12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 "‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

^{ACTS 21:17} When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. ¹⁸ On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. ¹⁹ After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. ²⁰ And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, ²¹ and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.

And Paul's calling is confirmed in Jesus' words in Acts 9:15 & 16:

^{ACTS 9:15} But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. ¹⁶ For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

Jeremy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207012#Comment_207012

Rejecting a foundational doctrine, while still claiming to be a Calvinist.

I don't think Geisler is really a Calvinist in any sense of the word.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207018#Comment_207018

I don't think Geisler is really a Calvinist in any sense of the word.

Note that I said "claiming to be Calvinist"

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207012#Comment_207012

I appreciate the fact that he has rejected predestination, as Calvin knew it. I must admit I would like to know how he threads that needle ...

You would need to read "Chosen But Free" to understand his thinking there. I could say more, but I don't want to derail this thread into theological controversy.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207029#Comment_207029

but I don't want to derail this thread into theological controversy.

hehehe...have we ever left it? I suppose so far we have stayed with "theological conversation" rather then controversy.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207034#Comment_207034

but I don't want to derail this thread into theological controversy.

hehehe...have we ever left it? I suppose so far we have stayed with "theological conversation" rather then controversy.

This has been a worthwhile and peaceable discussion. I do not want to change that.

Allen Browne

Recently, a very dear nephew has been drawn in to the new age "theology" that questions Paul's authority.

Hi Abi Gail. Sounds like you are getting lots of ideas for grounding your own beliefs. As well as doing that, you may need to find out where your Nephew's belief system is coming from. For example, if he's been reading Dan Brown's fiction (da Vinci Code etc), he may have been influenced by the Gnostic gospels. Whatever has influenced him, it would be worth finding out about that.

For example, the Gospel of Thomas: it wasn't written by Thomas, and it isn't a gospel, yet it has been influencial. There are resources dealing with it. Recent Bible dictionaries or N T Introductions would have something on it. Most Westerners are happy to reject it when they see how it ends:

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

James McConkey Robinson, Richard Smith and Coptic Gnostic Library Project, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 4th rev. ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 138.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206899#Comment_206899

Taking this to the extreme of saying Paul was perfect in his execution of his calling would indeed be an extreme.

Most definately......Lets just consider......Abram about Sarai going into Egypt? King David committing murder. Ultimately this is why our faith does not fall back on Paul or Abraham or David.....It falls back to God himself.

Dave Hooton

Recently, a very dear nephew has been drawn in to the new age "theology" that questions Paul's authority.

A very simple statement is that Paul's epistles were accepted very early as "scripture", along with those of the other Apostles and was part of the growing body of the "New Books":-

Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, 2 Clement) of “New Books” (Ignatius), called the “Gospel and Apostles” (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the “Oracles” of God (Polycarp, Papias, 2 Clement), or “Scriptures” (1 Tim., 2 Pet., Barn., Polycarp, 2 Clement), or the “Holy Books” or “Bible” (Testt. XII. Patt.).
The number of books included in this added body of New Books, at the opening of the second century, cannot be satisfactorily determined by the evidence of these fragments alone. The section of it called the “Gospel” included Gospels written by “the apostles and their companions” (Justin), which beyond legitimate question were our four Gospels now received. The section called “the Apostles” contained the book of Acts (The Testt. XII. Patt.) and epistles of Paul, John, Peter and James. The evidence from various quarters is indeed enough to show that the collection in general use contained all the books which we at present receive, with the possible exceptions of Jude, 2 and 3 John and Philemon. And it is more natural to suppose that failure of very early evidence for these brief booklets is due to their insignificant size rather than to their non-acceptance.

Warfield, B. B. (2008). The Canon of the New Testament: How and When Formed

I rather trust the opinion of Paul's peers than that of any body at a distance of 2000 years!

Silent Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207012#Comment_207012

Do you have Normal Geisler's Apologetics Library The Norman L. Geisler Apologetics Library ?

NOT YET ! ...EDIT: Now I Do

[^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206983#Comment_206983

Yes. We have already started down that slippery slope

This is where things become tricky because once the authority of any part of the Canon is doubted then it is difficult, but not impossible, to use any other part in defence. You may want to consider how you can bring in "external" sources to help you rebuild your nephew's confidence in Paul's authority. Examples could be Christians from the past or present whose views he respects that uphold the Canon. This may give you the bridge that you need to repair the damage that has been done.

I would also suggest looking for the root cause of the problem, was it a book that he read, a preacher or pastor that he has come in contact with or a struggle with a point of theology? Knowing the trigger will help you better understand and this may improve your ability to respond. Why questions can really help you get to the bottom of this and with the extra knowledge you can focus your study. If for example the change was caused by a book you will almost certainly find critiques of this book using Google.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/206899#Comment_206899

Take a look at 2 Peter 3:14-16. Especially note the phrases Paul wrote....the other scriptures. Peter seemed to place Paul's writings on par with other scriptures, which I personally take to mean the old Testament. Since my view of inspiration holds that what they wrote had the full endorsement of God as His own words I would contend that His words did bear the weight of the authority of God.

Additionally, along with God's calling Paul as an apostle came the God endorsed authority of the position. God gave Paul the calling to speak on his behalf (Apostle means sent one...he was sent to give a message). Along with that calling came a special ministry of the Holy Spirit to fulfill its obligations. Caution must be made here, though. Taking this to the extreme of saying Paul was perfect in his execution of his calling would indeed be an extreme.

One word of caution when using the text from 2 Peter, be prepared to defend the Petrine authorship of that letter. Usually those who reject Pauline authority will also reject Peter's authorship of 2 Peter.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207116#Comment_207116

I guess it all comes down to your view of Biblical authority - is it the word of God or not?

If you believe it is - no problem.

If you believe it isn't, you end up making up your own theology (and god) by taking what you like/believe and leaving what you don't.

If God exists, and wants us to know him, and loves us, could he possibly have left us without a definitive revelation of himself? I say "no" ... and that the Bible is that revelation (completed in the appearance in the flesh of his Son, Jesus).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207139#Comment_207139

I guess it all comes down to your view of Biblical authority - is it the word of God or not?

If you believe it is - no problem.

If you believe it isn't, you end up making up your own theology (and god) by taking what you like/believe and leaving what you don't.

If God exists, and wants us to know him, and loves us, could he possibly have left us without a definitive revelation of himself? I say "no" ... and that the Bible is that revelation (completed in the appearance in the flesh of his Son, Jesus).

[Y]

Bill Coley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207139#Comment_207139

If you believe it isn't, you end up making up your own theology (and god) by taking what you like/believe and leaving what you don't.

Jonathan,

And you (and I and every other follower of Jesus) don't do this? Isn't the inescapable result of your line of thinking that anyone whose theology disagrees with yours is wrong - probably heretical - because your theology reflects a decision not to take and leave anything from God's definitive revelation, which means anyone who disagrees with you obviously has taken or left something from that revelation which he/she should not have taken or left?

Just asking, [;)]

Bill

Mike S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207048#Comment_207048

In the kind of an apologetic role you're playing within family, I would strongly suggest listening much more then telling/teaching. Asking good questions is even more important then telling in the beginning.

Your nephew clearly choose to believe someone, some book, or something he sees as authoritative or at least simpatico. Find out more about that relationship -- ask about it. Do not try to "disprove" the person, but instead seek to learn why your nephew choose this route. Was there particular pain in his life?

The more listening you do, and the more you show a depth of understanding of his view, and even more particularly, why he choose this view, the more authority you will have to speak into his life.

Most importantly, prayer and remembering the role of the Holy Spirit and your availability to the Spirit are the most important elements in reaching your nephew!

Your nephew is blessed to have an aunt so willing to spend the time and invest in him for the Kingdom! God bless you!

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207139#Comment_207139

I guess it all comes down to your view of Biblical authority - is it the word of God or not?

If you believe it is - no problem

At least part of the problem being discussed here arises because too often Pastors and other Church Leaders expect people to accept that the Bible is God's word without properly explaining why. Asking people to simply take it for granted that the Bible is God's word leaves them open to this attack. We see this time and time again we fail to teach the basic foundational truths and effectively end up building on sand and all the wonderful truth that we think that we have taught comes tumbling down because they cannot defend the basics.

If you believe it isn't, you end up making up your own theology (and god) by taking what you like/believe and leaving what you don't

...taking lots of others down with you. We have a responsibility to ensure that others not only believe but understand why they believe so that they do not lose their way and lead others away as well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207174#Comment_207174

If you believe it isn't, you end up making up your own theology (and god) by taking what you like/believe and leaving what you don't.

Jonathan,

And you (and I and every other follower of Jesus) don't do this? Isn't the inescapable result of your line of thinking that anyone whose theology disagrees with yours is wrong - probably heretical - because your theology reflects a decision not to take and leave anything from God's definitive revelation, which means anyone who disagrees with you obviously has taken or left something from that revelation which he/she should not have taken or left?

Just asking,

Bill

Bill

I am not Jonathan, but since I gave his post a thumbs up, I will add my thoughts. Jonathan's opening statement was "I guess it all comes down to your view of Biblical authority - is it the word of God or not?" He was talking about the authority of Scripture not the interpretation of it. Since we are all fallible human beings, our interpretations will naturally differ. I have lived with the same woman for 49 years, and—even though we usually think alike—we sometimes disagree as to the meaning of a Scripture passage. However, we should all recognize the authority of God's Word, even if we sometimes differ on its meaning.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207201#Comment_207201

If you believe it isn't, you end up making up your own theology (and god) by taking what you like/believe and leaving what you don't.

Jonathan,

And you (and I and every other follower of Jesus) don't do this? Isn't the inescapable result of your line of thinking that anyone whose theology disagrees with yours is wrong - probably heretical - because your theology reflects a decision not to take and leave anything from God's definitive revelation, which means anyone who disagrees with you obviously has taken or left something from that revelation which he/she should not have taken or left?

Just asking,

Bill

Bill

I am not Jonathan, but since I gave his post a thumbs up, I will add my thoughts. Jonathan's opening statement was "I guess it all comes down to your view of Biblical authority - is it the word of God or not?" He was talking about the authority of Scripture not the interpretation of it. Since we are all fallible human beings, our interpretations will naturally differ. I have lived with the same woman for 49 years, and—even though we usually think alike—we sometimes disagree as to the meaning of a Scripture passage. However, we should all recognize the authority of God's Word, even if we sometimes differ on its meaning.

Indeed - I was reacting primarily to the comment about Peter's statement that Paul wrote scripture and that as such it has the authority of God behind it. If the Bible is God's word, then Peter's statement provides additional weight to the idea that Paul's writings are also God's word - and as such are authoritative, infallible, sufficient, etc. etc.

When it comes to doctrine, the question is whether the doctrine one holds to is held to because one believes the Bible says it, or because of something else (such as tradition, feelings, one own's logic extending past what the Bible says, etc.) ... but that is a much bigger question which goes into the hermeneutical method (which must also be based on one's view of what the Bible is) and so forth. Some things the Bible makes very clear (I was going to give an example - but that might introduce further controversy[;)] so I have removed it) and on some things there is legitimate disagreement between evangelical pastors and theologians.

[:D]

Bill Coley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207255#Comment_207255

Jonathan's opening statement was "I guess it
all comes down to your view of Biblical authority - is it the word of
God or not?" He was talking about the authority of Scripture not the
interpretation of it. Since we are all fallible human beings, our
interpretations will naturally differ. I have lived with the same woman
for 49 years, and—even though we usually think alike—we sometimes
disagree as to the meaning of a Scripture passage. However, we should
all recognize the authority of God's Word, even if we sometimes differ
on its meaning.

Indeed - I was reacting primarily to the comment about Peter's statement that Paul wrote scripture and that as such it has the authority of God behind it. If the Bible is God's word, then Peter's statement provides additional weight to the idea that Paul's writings are also God's word - and as such are authoritative, infallible, sufficient, etc. etc.

When it comes to doctrine, the question is whether the doctrine one holds to is held to because one believes the Bible says it, or because of something else (such as tradition, feelings, one own's logic extending past what the Bible says, etc.) ... but that is a much bigger question which goes into the hermeneutical method (which must also be based on one's view of what the Bible is) and so forth. Some things the Bible makes very clear (I was going to give an example - but that might introduce further controversy so I have removed it) and on some things there is legitimate disagreement between evangelical pastors and theologians.

Helpful clarifications, Jonathan and Jack. Thanks.

I think my larger intention was to point out the slipperiness of the slope created when we suggest other people are making up their gods and theologies (your earlier post, Jonathan), especially when the evidence of such allegedly-improvised beliefs is their use of Scripture in ways that are not in keeping with our particular views of biblical authority.

Since we all take and leave from Scripture in defense of our theologies and God (my earlier post), I thought you put anyone who disagrees with you at risk of indictment on the charge of an incorrect take on biblical authority, Jonathan – a reflection reinforced in your reply to me, where you identify a connection between doctrine and, among other things, biblical authority (“...what the Bible is”).

What’s to stop us from deciding about each other that our theological differences are products of each other’s wrong view of what the Bible is?... And once we decide the other is wrong about what the Bible is – by your earlier post – we’re a moment away from believing that the other is making up theology and gods, because that’s what people who have the wrong view end up doing.

A word of caution and tolerance, perhaps.

Blessings,
Bill

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207309#Comment_207309

What’s to stop us from deciding about each other that our theological differences are products of each other’s wrong view of what the Bible is?... And once we decide the other is wrong about what the Bible is – by your earlier post – we’re a moment away from believing that the other is making up theology and gods, because that’s what people who have the wrong view end up doing.

A word of caution and tolerance, perhaps.

Understood. I agree that caution is necessary in this area.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207139#Comment_207139

I guess it all comes down to your view of Biblical authority - is it the word of God or not?

I interpreted the original question differently. I took it to ask "how do we know that Paul's writings are part of the Bible - i.e. authoritative in the same sense that the Gospels are? I would have sent the original poster to resources on the development of the canon - especially of the New Testament canon. The fact that God left us with written self-revelation doesn't answer the question of how it came to contain the writings it does but not others that at various times were treated as scripture. The example that comes to mind is Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans.

Another underlying question is "does the nephew accept the authority of any portion of the Bible"? If so, what establishes that authority in his mind? How do the writings of Paul differ? One can't effective use scripture to support Paul's authority unless the nephew accepts the authority of the scripture quoted.

I'd say that the original poster needs to learn his nephew's reasoning before we can tell him how to find the errors in the reasoning.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207091#Comment_207091

I rather trust the opinion of Paul's peers than that of any body at a distance of 2000 years!

[Y]

Dave - you are right on target on how to address the issue ... which also serves as an opportunity for me to reiterate my request that Logos add more books on the development of the canon to their resources. http://community.logos.com/forums/p/15220/116862.aspx

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/207338#Comment_207338

An excellent book on this is:

Nothing but the Truth (Brian Edwards)

He explains and defends the authority and inspiration of the Bible (including the question of why 39 books in the OT and 27 in the NT). When I was at Uni and started to question and wonder about and be challenged by this issue, my pastor at the time recommended I read that book.