How Would You Respond to This Skeptical Question About Paul?

I was on https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/ today and saw this:

Why do we revere Paul’s letters as scripture?

The gospels and the acts are understandable, as they tell us the story of Christ’s acts and the acts of the apostles, but why does the NT contain letters, which were written with a specific intention and context, and why are they considered God-breathed scripture that we apply to our lives?

I read a lot of the replies, and none of them seemed to convince the questioner. One person said that Peter spoke of Paul's letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), but the questioner refused to accept that Peter has that authority. He also said that we don't know just what Pauline writings Peter referred to, and Peter didn't write 2 Peter anyway. On and on, the guy (I think it's a guy) was super skeptical of evidence put forth. He seems to believe the Gospels and Acts are inspired, and the rest is one man's interpretation of Christianity.

How would you answer someone who came to you with this question? I'm not asking because my faith is faltering, nor do I want to add to this particular Reddit thread. I'm more curious about how I should respond to someone who came directly to me with this challenge.

Interesting question.
I have sometimes wondered about this. The canon of the New Testament was decided by a group of humans. They included some writings and excluded others. Can we be sure they were guided by God in those decisions? I've not lost any sleep over it, but the question has certainly occured to me.

I'll be very interested in what you guys have to say.

AGoodReed wrote:
How would you answer someone who came to you with this question?

Outside of my work, I don't bother engaging in these things with online strangers anymore as it tends to be an unfruitful use of my time. But if they were flesh and blood in the room with me, I'd say "That's a really interesting topic! I'll have to refresh my memory and get back to you with some helpful resources, but it's a good investigation to pursue!"

Then I'd go do some reading again and e-mail them any links I think they might find useful. (Like this one! https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-revelation/doctrine-of-revelation-part-10 )

In general, I don't think people are open to having their minds changed in conversation. Our pride makes it easier to change our minds when we feel like we're doing it on our own. So offering resources that they can choose to explore or not is usually the route I will go.

Why do we revere Paul’s letters as scripture?

The gospels and the acts are understandable, as they tell us the story of Christ’s acts and the acts of the apostles, but why does the NT contain letters, which were written with a specific intention and context, and why are they considered God-breathed scripture that we apply to our lives?

Question 1

The test for canonicity of scripture is the same as the test for any other document of evidence.

1. Is it from a primary source? - In this case, a witness to Jesus' teaching.

2. Can it be verified by other sources? - In this case, Roman historical records and church records.

It is important to remember that scripture is first and foremost a historical document whose provenance should first be verified before we accept it as teaching material. The failure of Roman Catholic Apocrypha to live up to the rules of evidence is the primary reason for their exclusion from the canon of scripture.


Question 2

Why do we apply letters written specifically to other people in other places at other times to our lives today?

Again we refer to rules of evidence: once the provenance has been verified, the evidence must be considered universally applicable. Unfortunately, the interpretation of that instruction is a source of some contention.

To quote Alistair Begg, "To get to Cleveland we must first go through Corinthia," and "You must use scripture to interpret scripture." In other words, the intention of Paul's letters to their original recipients is the intention to us today and it is consistent with the rest of scripture. As an example, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul admonishes women to not pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered. We know from 1 Samuel that God doesn't care about outward appearance but about intention. Paul, therefore, is not laying down the law that women should wear hats when praying - as that instruction is found nowhere else in scripture.

To chase down Paul's intentions here, refer to these two really excellent resources:

Sermon by Nathan James Norman

In Search of Truth by Paeter Frandsen

AGoodReed wrote:I was on https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/ today and saw this:

I read a lot of the replies, and none of them seemed to convince the questioner. One person said that Peter spoke of Paul's letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), but the questioner refused to accept that Peter has that authority. He also said that we don't know just what Pauline writings Peter referred to, and Peter didn't write 2 Peter anyway. On and on, the guy (I think it's a guy) was super skeptical of evidence put forth. He seems to believe the Gospels and Acts are inspired, and the rest is one man's interpretation of Christianity.

How would you answer someone who came to you with this question? I'm not asking because my faith is faltering, nor do I want to add to this particular Reddit thread. I'm more curious about how I should respond to someone who came directly to me with this challenge.

I think you are correct in not adding to the Reddit thread argument. No one in history has been argued into changing their stance on the price of beans.

Once upon a time, I challenged my mother with very nearly these exact same questions, adding that I'm sure I could do a better job of teaching scripture than Paul did. I'm a very humble person. My mother was a college professor, a newspaper reporter, an ordained AoG evangelist and absolutely devoted to showing everyone the love of God. Her response? "That's a good point. Don't take anyone's word for it. You should verify the sources, throw out the ones that don't pass the test, and correct Paul's mistakes."

So I started doing that. Long story short, I returned home with red cheeks and a notebook full of reference material that verified the scriptures.

It's not as trendy as a website, but the two most helpful books I have found are:

Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

mindspike wrote:
In Search of Truth by Paeter Frandsen

Holy crap that's a deep cut! 10 years ago on an abandoned site!