The Inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the NT must be Reconsidered

It is clear that he has put lots of thought toward this topic, and I look forward to a challenging and profitable debate. I am also excited to participate in a debate that is actually a fully structured debate. As such, I will not be rebutting much of my opponent's initial argument as that will take place in our first rebuttal round (round 3), but I will be offering a few historical corrections. I would like to open with a series of questions. What is Scripture? Is it only what explicitly claims to be Scripture? Does it only include documents that were intended to be considered Scripture? Does it have to be written by God himself? Does the author determine if it is Scripture? Can only certain people write Scripture? The answer to this question is complex and tricky and these are questions that have been asked for as long as religion has existed. My hope is that we may come to some conclusions, and that our discussion here will move us closer to having answers to some of these questions. However, I humbly acknowledge that we will not make a breakthrough in Bibliology today. I also want to acknowledge that my opponent does exhibit a lack of faith in any way by asking these questions. This question is essential to anyone studying the Bible. The question at hand is this: Should the Pauline Epistles (I am considering the Epistles that are in dispute in terms of Pauline Authorship to be authentically Pauline) be included in the NT. To do so, we must understand how the formation of the Canon came about. This is where my correction to my opponent comes in. My opponent seems to believe that the NT Canon was established at the Council of Trent in the Catholic Counter-Reformation (16th century). However, the NT Canon had been officially codified at the Council of Rome in 382. The work is preserved in Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei by Damascus I and reads Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians [First Epistle to the Corinthians and Second Epistle to the Corinthians], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. [A] In addition to this we have a list dating back to Athanasius in 367 [B], and Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 [D] It is clear that we can confidently say that by the year 350 the Pauline Epistles were considered scripture by the vast majority of the early fathers, and it is likely that this list was a result of the Canon declaration of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This leads me to my first full contention. Protestants trust the theological development at the Council of Nicaea, why wouldn't we trust their assessment of what is Scripture? It is clear that we affirm the Divinity of the Son, the nature of the Trinity, and the rejection of Arian theology. In addition, the Council of Nicaea determined how we would set Easter on the Calendar, as well as other things that we as Protestants agree with. This Council's findings are universally agreed upon by Christians as valid. If we agree to the validity of this council, we are also agreeing to the validity of the Canon they produced. Next, we must ask another question. Did the Church before this council view Paul's letters as Scripture? We can see from the Apostolic/Anti-Nicene Fathers that Paul's letters were held as authoritative as early as the end of the 1st Century. Although Clement still reserves the technical term "Scripture" for the LXX, he references them as authoritative teachings for the Church. In addition, there is internal evidence within the Bible that the Apostles (that is the 12) viewed Paul's letters as Scripture. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16 we see Peter write "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. "[D] This brings me to my second full contention The New Testament Church viewed Paul as an Apostle and his writings as Scripture. We see in various places in the New Testament that the word Apostle is used in various ways. In one sense, it is used as a technical term for the original 12 disciples of Jesus (Including Judas' replacement). However, in another sense it is used in its more definitional form. It comes from the word "apostello" which means "To send. "[E] So an Apostle is simply one who is sent, in the case of the New Testament we see it used as one who is sent under the authority of Christ (while he was on earth) or the Church (after Christ's ascension. We see this term used of the 72 who were sent out by Christ in Luke 10, in addition to the 12 original disciples. We also see Jesus commission Paul for apostolic ministry to the Gentiles in Acts 9 when he says to Ananias "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name. "[F] In addition to this we see his being sent by the Jerusalem Council to Antioch with a letter for Silas and Judas in Acts 15. This is further supported by the fact that the "authentic" apostles were still mostly living and active during Paul's ministry. If Paul was a charlatan Apostle, we would expect to see some sort of rebuke from the 12. However, the Apostle Peter not only allows Paul to continue, but the Jerusalem Council differs to his wisdom in the Judaizer controversy. Even when Paul "openly opposed him, and reproved him. "[G] If Paul was not considered equal with Peter and the other 12, we would expect them to have chastised him for this behavior, not submit to it. Finally, Peter himself calls Paul's writing Scripture. In the aforementioned passage of 2nd Peter he refers to Paul's letter and compares it to "the other Scriptures. " If Peter did not consider Paul's letters to be Scripture, we would expect him to use a different word when describing it. Conclusion It is my argument that from the very beginning of the circulation of Paul's letters they have been considered to be Scripture. In contention one I showed that this was true of the Early Church, implicitly in the Ante-Nicene, Explicitly in the Post-Nicene. Furthermore, I have presented a reasonable case that the early Church not only allowed Paul's claim of Apostleship, but in fact endorsed and originated it. In addition, we have internal references in the 2nd letter of Peter of referencing Paul's letters as Scripture. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal and wish him the best of luck. Thank you. [A] F. F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1988), 97. - Quote Cut/Pasted from . http://en.wikipedia.org... - Please note that this list attributes Hebrews to Paul, which I am not wont to do. The list continues, but for sake of space I have only included pertinent text. [B] . http://www.ccel.org... - Paragraph 5 [C] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [D] Esv. to/2Peter3:15-16 - Emphasis mine [E] . http://www.blueletterbible.org... [F] Esv. to/Acts9:15-16 [G] Esv. to/Galatians2:11