Would Paul be horrified to learn that his letters are in the Bible?

Jackson Cooper

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
609
182
Nowhere
✟37,463.00
Country
Afghanistan
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Of all the books in the Bible, the ones written by Paul seem to be most commonly attacked. Liberals don't like what Paul said about adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals. Anarchists don't like what he said about paying taxes and being subject to governing authorities. How do we know that Paul's writings are God-breathed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drick

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
How do we know that Paul's writings are God-breathed?
Just offhand I'd say because
(1) the Church established by the Apostles received them as truth
(2) these topics are in agreement with the rest of Scripture, and the teachings of Christ Himself.


ETA - the question I answered is actually "how do we know they should be accepted within the canon?"

I'm a little hesitant to define them strictly as "God breathed" because even St. Paul differentiates between what is directly from God and what is his own teaching in some places.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: klutedavid
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I tend to think the Apostle Paul would be horrified at what is being promulgated in his name.
After thinking about it a moment, you're right. But the same could be said of pretty much all the writers of Scripture, and even Christ Himself.

People have long been twisting the teaching.

I think St. Paul's writings are particularly susceptible. The Scriptures mention that some were already perverting his teaching, because it was hard to understand.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

David Kent

Continuing Historicist
Aug 24, 2017
2,173
663
86
Ashford Kent
✟116,777.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Peter considers Paul's writings with "the other scriptures".
  • 14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
  • 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
  • 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,838
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
St. Paul was eventually embraced by the early church ( Acts 9:26-30 ). The church of Antioch heard the testimony of the Holy Spirit for his appointment as apostle ( Acts 12:25 , Acts 13:1-3 ). The whole church was pleased by St. Paul's appointment in Jerusalem ( Acts 15:22-29 ).

St. Ignatius an early bishop of Antioch testifies of St. Paul's preaching to the Ephesians (ca. 100 AD ). "You are initiates of the same mysteries as our saintly and renowned Paul of blessed memory ( may I be found to have walked on his footsteps when I come to God!), who has remembered you in Jesus Christ in every one of his letters." ( St Ignatius to the Ephesians).
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Of all the books in the Bible, the ones written by Paul seem to be most commonly attacked. Liberals don't like what Paul said about adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals. Anarchists don't like what he said about paying taxes and being subject to governing authorities. How do we know that Paul's writings are God-breathed?

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because every day they diligently tested everything he said against OT Scriptures to see if what he said is true. Paul quoted or alluded to OT Scriptures thousands of times to show that they supported what he said and that he didn't deviate from them, so if you are questioning whether we to accept what Paul said, then you should perform the same test.
 
Upvote 0

Drick

Active Member
Aug 22, 2017
136
111
Alabama
✟18,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Wouldn't the Orthodox believe the same as the Roman Catholics in this regard; That we know his letters are inspired because so-and-so council established it, or something to that effect?

Sorry to be annoying, since I'm not coming at this from an Orthodox perspective in an Orthodox Forum, but Paul is too interesting not to toss a bit in...

As for my two cents, I don't hold to the whole "inspiration hypothesis" as most people understand it, I believe that the Bible is a useful collection of literature that can help you understand God, but perhaps even more importantly, the nature of reality itself. However, I don't necessarily believe that all of the books have the direct hand of the Holy Spirit on them, nor do I believe that the collection of works commonly referred to as "the Bible" was divinely compiled. Considering that if I'm right, Paul would certainly know it, and believe what he wrote, I'd say he's fine with it. If I'm wrong, his works are divine, sanctioned by every Christian Church in the world, he'd know that, and still be fine with it. Regardless, he'd probably be thrilled to know that his influence on the faith stayed permanent either way, cause who wouldn't be? He's human too, after all, and his writings have essentially made a part of him immortal, as all great poets and writers are. Perhaps even more so, since he, not even being one of the original disciples, set many of the standards by which every church teaches and operates to this day.


I don't know if that tangent I just barfed out is sufficient. I'll go point by point, so you don't have to read it... which I probably should have done from the beginning... I'm leaving the first part in anyway, cause why not?

-Would Paul be horrified to learn that his letters are in the Bible?

Probably not, since he presumably believed everything that he was writing.

-Of all the books in the Bible, the ones written by Paul seem to be most commonly attacked.

Of the New Testament, maybe. I usually here criticism of the Old Testament Law more than anything else, on the basis that if a God could sanction such a primitive guide to society, it shouldn't be considered any being worth engaging with. That's just a nitpick though, sorry for being annoying again.

-Liberals don't like what Paul said about adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals. Anarchists don't like what he said about paying taxes and being subject to governing authorities.

I consider myself a sort of long-term anarchist (That is, we should strive to raise our children so well that they can't possibly have need of a state). Anarchy in its purest form is simply an absence of compulsory relationships in exchange for an all-encompassing voluntary principle. It's an advocacy for the replacement of the abstracted social contract for a tangible one. It does not refer to the end of rules. Unfortunately, Marxists have corrupted the word to the point where it's essentially a synonym for either unquenchable lawless riot gangs or a Communistic dream-world, neither of which is actually representative of the idea. The word you're looking for here is "post-modernist", not anarchist or liberal. Nothing but semantics really, but maybe it's worth acknowledging.

-How do we know that Paul's writings are God-breathed?

Though I don't know if they actually were, I can think of several good reasons that any Christian could give. 1: They're regarded as infallible and a part of the New Testament, which is the same compilation that includes the entire story of Christ, in every Christian Church on the face of the Earth. 2: They were included in the first complete Christian Bible ever compiled by the Church as canonical writings, which as about as good of an approval and ratification as you can possibly get when it comes to Holy Writings. 3: Even if they hadn't been a part of the Bible, he was still an important founder of the Church, arguably even more important than Simon Peter himself. Can you get more trustworthy?

Hope this helps! I'm running off fumes of my morning energy drink, so if this turned out to be a useless turd of a post, you'll have to forgive me. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I just thought it might interest you at some point to mention that we view Scripture as being ... in different levels. The Gospels are primary compared to the epistles, for example. Some parts of the Gospels are more important than others. The Old Testament must be understood through the lens of the Gospels, because they show Christ, who is God revealed to us in the flesh.

You don't get the kind of wholesale claims of "infallibility" with the whole book thumped down. Not because we don't believe it's true (it is) but because our view is very nuanced.

It makes a lot more sense of some of the difficulties that some non-Christians charge against the Scriptures, and doesn't bother the Church that there are certain points of textual criticism or apparent contradictions.

Not to detail the thread. But I thought it made a good point to add to your post. :)

Wouldn't the Orthodox believe the same as the Roman Catholics in this regard; That we know his letters are inspired because so-and-so council established it, or something to that effect?

Sorry to be annoying, since I'm not coming at this from an Orthodox perspective in an Orthodox Forum, but Paul is too interesting not to toss a bit in...

As for my two cents, I don't hold to the whole "inspiration hypothesis" as most people understand it, I believe that the Bible is a useful collection of literature that can help you understand God, but perhaps even more importantly, the nature of reality itself. However, I don't necessarily believe that all of the books have the direct hand of the Holy Spirit on them, nor do I believe that the collection of works commonly referred to as "the Bible" was divinely compiled. Considering that if I'm right, Paul would certainly know it, and believe what he wrote, I'd say he's fine with it. If I'm wrong, his works are divine, sanctioned by every Christian Church in the world, he'd know that, and still be fine with it. Regardless, he'd probably be thrilled to know that his influence on the faith stayed permanent either way, cause who wouldn't be? He's human too, after all, and his writings have essentially made a part of him immortal, as all great poets and writers are. Perhaps even more so, since he, not even being one of the original disciples, set many of the standards by which every church teaches and operates to this day.


I don't know if that tangent I just barfed out is sufficient. I'll go point by point, so you don't have to read it... which I probably should have done from the beginning... I'm leaving the first part in anyway, cause why not?

-Would Paul be horrified to learn that his letters are in the Bible?

Probably not, since he presumably believed everything that he was writing.

-Of all the books in the Bible, the ones written by Paul seem to be most commonly attacked.

Of the New Testament, maybe. I usually here criticism of the Old Testament Law more than anything else, on the basis that if a God could sanction such a primitive guide to society, it shouldn't be considered any being worth engaging with. That's just a nitpick though, sorry for being annoying again.

-Liberals don't like what Paul said about adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals. Anarchists don't like what he said about paying taxes and being subject to governing authorities.

I consider myself a sort of long-term anarchist (That is, we should strive to raise our children so well that they can't possibly have need of a state). Anarchy in its purest form is simply an absence of compulsory relationships in exchange for an all-encompassing voluntary principle. It's an advocacy for the replacement of the abstracted social contract for a tangible one. It does not refer to the end of rules. Unfortunately, Marxists have corrupted the word to the point where it's essentially a synonym for either unquenchable lawless riot gangs or a Communistic dream-world, neither of which is actually representative of the idea. The word you're looking for here is "post-modernist", not anarchist or liberal. Nothing but semantics really, but maybe it's worth acknowledging.

-How do we know that Paul's writings are God-breathed?

Though I don't know if they actually were, I can think of several good reasons that any Christian could give. 1: They're regarded as infallible and a part of the New Testament, which is the same compilation that includes the entire story of Christ, in every Christian Church on the face of the Earth. 2: They were included in the first complete Christian Bible ever compiled by the Church as canonical writings, which as about as good of an approval and ratification as you can possibly get when it comes to Holy Writings. 3: Even if they hadn't been a part of the Bible, he was still an important founder of the Church, arguably even more important than Simon Peter himself. Can you get more trustworthy?

Hope this helps! I'm running off fumes of my morning energy drink, so if this turned out to be a useless turd of a post, you'll have to forgive me. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Drick

Active Member
Aug 22, 2017
136
111
Alabama
✟18,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I just thought it might interest you at some point to mention that we view Scripture as being ... in different levels. The Gospels are primary compared to the epistles, for example. Some parts of the Gospels are more important than others. The Old Testament must be understood through the lens of the Gospels, because they show Christ, who is God revealed to us in the flesh.

You don't get the kind of wholesale claims of "infallibility" with the whole book thumped down. Not because we don't believe it's true (it is) but because our view is very nuanced.

It makes a lot more sense of some of the difficulties that some non-Christians charge against the Scriptures, and doesn't bother the Church that there are certain points of textual criticism or apparent contradictions.
That actually sounds very close to my ideas, but like I said, I was running off fumes when I typed that response, so I probably defaulted to the Christianity I grew up with when trying to address it in the general sense.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That actually sounds very close to my ideas, but like I said, I was running off fumes when I typed that response, so I probably defaulted to the Christianity I grew up with when trying to address it in the general sense.
No problem. :)
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Of all the books in the Bible, the ones written by Paul seem to be most commonly attacked. Liberals don't like what Paul said about adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals. Anarchists don't like what he said about paying taxes and being subject to governing authorities. How do we know that Paul's writings are God-breathed?

As to your thread title, Paul would not be horrified. The man had an immense ego. He denigrated the Apostles. He also used the personal pronouns 'I,' 'me,' and 'my' three times as often per verse in his letters as any of the other Apostles did in theirs.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As to your thread title, Paul would not be horrified. The man had an immense ego. He denigrated the Apostles. He also used the personal pronouns 'I,' 'me,' and 'my' three times as often per verse in his letters as any of the other Apostles did in theirs.

no one cares about your personal exegesis, especially when you simply used it to insult one of our most beloved saints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,838
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
St. Paul, I believe felt he was given a new lease on life; he was commanded by God, approved by the apostles and fulfilled his calling.

He preached boldly ( Acts of the Apostles 9:27 ) but also called himself chief of sinners ( 1 Timothy 1:15 ). He discouraged politics ( Romans 13:1-7 ) probably out of concern for the lives of fellow Christians & people in general. He called himself a bondservant of the Lord ( Romans 1:1 per NKJV ).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums