A questionon the letters of Paul

[Bill the Cat]

It is generally accepted that the First letter to the Corinthians was actually the second letter written as a response to a letter from the Corinthian church to Paul. Peter also says the Paul writes the same way in all of his letters.
:btc:
My question is this:
What would happen if we were to find a letter that linguistically and historically could be attributed to Paul? Would we need to reopen the canon to add the letter?

I'd love some opinion from the Christians here.

[Solly]

Bill, a few thoughts; we already have the situation where there are words attributed to Christ outside the records in the canon of the NT. It hasn't changed anything, (leaving aside the question of whether they are really genuine, and who says so).

I have also heard that there is a 29th chapter of Acts floating around.

Critics have already concluded that the letters we have are actually those several letters put into two.

It wouldn't change anything to my mind, since I believe we have what we need through God's providence.

(the non-technical view)

[nomad]

well, there are books like Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans. No one is really sure if it's authentic or not (from what i've read), though there really was an epistle to the laodiceans (it's mentioned in Colossians iirc).

with the current document though, it doesn't matter; the style does seem like Paul, but the letter appears to be merely extractions from his other letters. So it doesn't add anything or change anything.

So, even if it were to be found authentic, I don't think anything would need to be done (and this depends a lot on your view of the canon as well of course).

A question though: Suppose a new document were found that linguistically and historically (*) could be attributed to Paul, but seemed to contradict his other letters in its actual teachings. Would this be a good reason to throw out the letter as unscriptural, or a good reason to change our understandings of scripture in light of this new discovery?

(*) - i question this, because the church has a long history, and if there are any letters that history would attest to, they would already be investigated and either canonized (for those in the canon) or declared outside the canon. so i don't think a new letter could really historically be attributed to Paul; we would have already heard of it.... well, i suppose there is the missing epistle to the laodiceans...

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks. My view is that the Canon is the Word of God in it's entirety. If God were to give more instruction or words, should they be canon as well?

[nomad]

Thanks. My view is that the Canon is the Word of God in it's entirety. If God were to give more instruction or words, should they be canon as well?


do you mean when you say that tha Canon is 'the Word of God in its entirety' that the Canon is 'all of God's word that has even been given to man'? Because i definitely disagree with that. an obvious example: the acts 2 time. All the 120 were speaking through the spirit (i'll assume we both agree these are 'words of God'), yet the words are not recorded, only the general subject matter.

if you accept at all spiritual gifts for today (i do not know if you do), then obviously prophecy would fall into this class (and in OT times, as God sent prophets, they would add them to their scriptures). we don't do this today of course. or maybe even if you don't believe in spiritual gifts, if you believe God has ever answered a prayer by telling you something, then that would also apply.

If you mean 'The canon is 100% God's word from cover to cover', ok i can accept that definition. but then, i don't really care what you put in the canon after that. the canon was meant for spiritual growth, but instead most christians want to use to bash each other over the head with 'proof' of their point of view. so, if you hear it as God's word, if it instructs you, who cares if it's in the canon or not (though, of course, as i also have faith in the canon, if anything disagrees with scripture, it is not from God. the canon i don't think was meant to be exhaustive, but it is meant to be a measuring stick for judging 'new' revelation...)

i was most impressed when i read the philokalia, a collection of writings from monks from the 5th to 14th centuries. some of them (especially the later ones) i didn't get as much out of. but many of the earlier ones start out something vaguely like this: 'this other monk and i went to the holy father and begged him with tears to tell us the ways of righteousness, and he relented and told us that which we carefully wrote down' (i don't have it handy or i'd post a quote)... totally opposite of the way knowledge is passed down today.

i am becoming increasingly appreciative of the role of a mentor in the christian walk, and not merely just reading scripture all day (though they shouldn't be in conflict of course!)

but this is getting a lot off topic i think.

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks, I'll reply after lunch. :btc:

[jpholding]

Bill,

A scholar named Trobisch studied ancient letter collections and the sum of his work is that the letters we have from Paul are the ones he chose himself for the collection, or else were chosen by one of his helpers like Luke or Timothy. This would suggest that any of his found otherwise were not meant to be in the official collection he wanted used.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95313#post95313)
nomad:

do you mean when you say that tha Canon is 'the Word of God in its entirety' that the Canon is 'all of God's word that has even been given to man'?

to clarify your statement, for salvation, yes.

Because i definitely disagree with that. an obvious example: the acts 2 time. All the 120 were speaking through the spirit (i'll assume we both agree these are 'words of God'), yet the words are not recorded, only the general subject matter.

In a way, yes, but they are directed to God as prayer or praise from us.

if you accept at all spiritual gifts for today (i do not know if you do),

Absolutely. I'm a tongue speaker myself and my wife has the gift of prophecy.

then obviously prophecy would fall into this class (and in OT times, as God sent prophets, they would add them to their scriptures). we don't do this today of course.

The difference here, as I'm sure you know, is the difference between the prophecies of the OT prophets and the prophecy that is a gift of the Spirit. The prophecy of the OT was for future events to be fulfilled. The prophecy for the NT church is for the edification of the people. They are IMHO two separate events. Both are from God, but only one type was needed to point to the Messiah.

If you mean 'The canon is 100% God's word from cover to cover', ok i can accept that definition. but then, i don't really care what you put in the canon after that. the canon was meant for spiritual growth, but instead most christians want to use to bash each other over the head with 'proof' of their point of view. so, if you hear it as God's word, if it instructs you, who cares if it's in the canon or not (though, of course, as i also have faith in the canon, if anything disagrees with scripture, it is not from God. the canon i don't think was meant to be exhaustive, but it is meant to be a measuring stick for judging 'new' revelation...)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with almost all of your points you made here.

The point I was trying to make and ask, why was the canon closed when it was closed and if God has new information for us, why not put it in?

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks JP, could you come by the mormon thread for a min and give me a hand? I don't think I'm getting my point across too well, and maybe need a fresh pair of eyes to explain what i'm getting at. And where has Kevin been lately?

[Jacob]

I've got to agree with Nomad...

While the "word of God" through tongues or prophecy might be considered authoritative over those who first receive it, it does not carry the universal authoritythat the "Word of God = Scripture" carries for all believers.

Also, I think it would be inconsistent to suggest that God would give a "universal revelation", as we have in scripture, and then allow it to be hidden from the church for 2000 years...

Jacob

[jpholding]

Today @ 06:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95377#post95377)
Bill the Cat:

Thanks JP, could you come by the mormon thread for a min and give me a hand? I don't think I'm getting my point across too well, and maybe need a fresh pair of eyes to explain what i'm getting at. And where has Kevin been lately?

I'll try to pop in tomorrow. Stevie Carr has been playing games and I need to keep on top of his lies in Rel 101. I have not heard from Kevin lately but I think his new wife keeps him off the computer. :smile:

[Carl Smuda]

Good systematic theology books on charismatics do go into detail about the difference between the prophecy of scripture, foretelling prophecy and forthtelling prophecy. I too worship in the spirit regularly. i.e. I speak in tongues. We can all operate the worship/utterance manifestations. We did anyway. I'd say 99.9% of the prophecy in regular meetings is forthtelling. (words of edification, exhortation, and comfort - without the greater prophecy of God's inspired scripture or the messages coming from someone with a ministry of Prophet).

anyway, one thing about the Church Epistles. some have said that when the thing described in the revelation is complete then it is enough. That's probably not the best way to say it. :shrug: The nature of the Christian is described in the revelation that the Apostle Paul received from the Lord Jesus Christ. The eschatological characteristics of us, all Christians, is described in the NT canon. The OT writers wrote about the coming Christ event. The understood those prophecies as a single event. We now know from NT canon that what they described as a single event is in two stages. The present age, and the age to come. We also know (especially from the revelation given to the Apostle Paul from the Lord Jesus Christ -that we now have in writing in canon) that the tremendous blessings in the Body of Christ, through the Gift of Holy Spirit, are tokens and firstfruits of greater blessings in the next age.

Who we are in Christ is described in the epistles. In many ways that is enough. Only because we have so much to grow to understand and live by with the Spirit from our Lord's Christ! The divine nature of All Christians is the diamond in the rough. Nothing can dimish that, and if it does then it isn't from God. Or Paul's letters shouldn't be in canon.

The Church Epistles define basic Christianity. Even after the letters from the apostolic writings, the generation after them already acknowledges the letters of Paul. If there was something missing I don't understand how it could take away from the revelation given to him. Anything missing should only corroborate what was preserved. Anything that contradicts the truths in the epistles is highly suspect. Anything that moves away from the living habitation of God through the Spirit (the Body of Christ) back to a physical temple (like the Mormons) is teaching something different from the gospel that Paul preached.

I would love to read anything we can unearth that might be from the Apostle-to-the-Gentiles. How fantastic would that be? The nice thing about our canon is that it IS safe and sound surrounded by good science, I think. We have thousands of critical texts in museums around the world that help the experts come up with the best honest translations. and they all will reveal to us the Christ-in being through the Spirit of the Living God. the one spirit that all Christians, by definition, drink into and are baptized into. In contrast, the Mormons have this secret little collection of writings that only they know about. A Temple that is holier than the Saints of God themselves (!), a hierarchy (there is no hierarchy in the true Body of Christ).

Nothing changes the truth in the Church Epistles except the false teachings that Paul condemned.

I'll stop talking now...
Carl

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks Carl. I got a similar answer from my best friend's dad, who is a PhD. in Paulean studies so :btc: :thumb: Carl

[Carl Smuda]

Thanks Bill. I am really glad that you and your wife are charismatic. Someday, if our Lord wills, I too could be likeminded with my wife. I need to pray more. I miss the fellowship. I'm tired of waltzing with Mormons. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

God Bless you and yours, in all sincerity, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Have a great weekend!