Hey, lets pick and choose!

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

So why weren't ALL of Paul's letters canonized? Seems the early Church decided that not all Paul's letters were written to be Scripture, and yet this passage says otherwise.

I must say I'm not aware of any of Paul's epistles that weren't cannonized. The only thing I know of that isn't in is the gnostic texts that are claimed as Pauline authorship, and those wouldn't have been admitted because they weren't considered genuinely Paul's writings. But perhaps I'm ignorant to the topic, please offer some more info if there is some. To my knowledge every epistle believed to genuinely be written by Paul was cannonized. Now some of those books have been challenged as Paul's authorship by some scholars today (including Hebrews, Ephesians, 1/2 Timothy, and Titus). Although many also say the otherwise (that he did write them). Hebrews is probably the biggest question as to whether or not it was actually Pauline. How you understand that could influence whether you want to call them God breathed though.

 

[RayJGentry]

i guess the one main thing i have to say is in regards to a statement in the original post. lutherans are accused of "picking and choosing." i think it's honestly very hard to look at any denomination and say they haven't picked and chosen. every denomination has scripture and law that they place in priority over others, sometimes rather arbitrarily. i'll get back with some specifics, but i'm sure most will agree.

also, by the ELCA taking a stance on the inspired word of God, they by defnition admit that some things need to be taken in a differnt context rather than literally. this obviously leads to a controversy about how to decide that. but i think it's a valid point. many denominations say that every word of the bible is literal and ought to be followed. however we rarely see churches expecting people to give up all their material possessions and travel and preach the word. instead they typically hold to the old testament law/teaching of tithing. so it gets interesting there.

if you were to ask them why they don't do it if all the bible is literal and should be followed exactly, they'll say that Jesus was proving a point with the young man who wouldn't give up everything/anything to follow Christ. well, right there is an example of them deciding that example is a figurative one. most christians would say that it's about the willingness to follow Christ, whatever He asks of us. regardless, they're choosing to accept that those instructions are not to us individually, but as an example.

so there's my example, more on this later.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

So why weren't ALL of Paul's letters canonized? Seems the early Church decided that not all Paul's letters were written to be Scripture, and yet this passage says otherwise.

It seems to me and my study that all the texts that were believed to be authored by Paul were cannonized, though some have been challenged recently towards whether some like 1 & 2 Timothy and Hebrews was really written by Paul. The only documents I know of that are claimed to be written by Paul but not included were gnostic documents and they would've arisen after te death of Paul and been taken as false authorship by the 4th century when the cannon was made official. Keep in mind it wasn't uncommon for people to sign these documents under other people's names so that it would be taken "seriously". Some can debate how good the priests and bishops were at deciphering which was and wasn't Paul's letters (or the other apostles' works) but that was clearly the intent.