How do you discern which parts of the New Testament are Applicable for Christians today?

[gcdonner]

I believe ALL of the NT is applicable and prescriptive. Reason: there are absolutely no new behaviors today that did not exist in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

I do not believe that we can pick and choose items from the NT like a smorgasbord. The NT is an integrated whole teaching that cannot be picked apart for the savory bits and leaving out the parts we do not like as though we are fussy children. I take very seriously the warning in Revelation.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Hey Max, you made a very basic mistake in quoting the above passage. While the principle may apply to one degree or another, it is limited to the book of Revelation and the author did not have the whole of scripture or even the NT in view. The phrase "the book of this prophecy" limits it to the book of Revelation. This perfectly illustrates the whole issue, we tend to read through scripture rather than reading it for what it actually says or the limits it self imposes. "A text taken out of context becomes a pretext."

[MaxPC]

Hey Max, you made a very basic mistake in quoting the above passage. While the principle may apply to one degree or another, it is limited to the book of Revelation and the author did not have the whole of scripture or even the NT in view. The phrase "the book of this prophecy" limits it to the book of Revelation. This perfectly illustrates the whole issue, we tend to read through scripture rather than reading it for what it actually says or the limits it self imposes. "A text taken out of context becomes a pretext."

Thank you for your perspective, GC. It is good to see you posting again.
In my perspective based in Catholic World, we view Scripture not just an historic record but also as an instruction book for our Christian walk. In doing so we are extrapolative to today's situations and challenges. In view of the fact that there are people who are seeking to remove those verses that remind them they are in sin, as Catholics we see that verse as especially salient.

Do you have any new vehicles you are building?

[Bootstrap]

While the principle may apply to one degree or another, it is limited to the book of Revelation and the author did not have the whole of scripture or even the NT in view. The phrase "the book of this prophecy" limits it to the book of Revelation. This perfectly illustrates the whole issue, we tend to read through scripture rather than reading it for what it actually says or the limits it self imposes. "A text taken out of context becomes a pretext."

I agree.

I like John Walton's guideline: Scripture was written for us, but it was not written to us. We have to look at what God said to them, what it meant to them then, then ask what God is saying to us through that now. And that involves Holy Spirit discernment, together, as a community.

A good Mennonite example: Should real wine be normative for communion? If we insist on literal footwashing (which I appreciate), why not insist on using real wine? Most of us, I think, believe in simple obedience to the parts that make sense to us. Most of us have sets of things we read past, like baptisms for the dead, and do not apply directly. I think it's helpful to be aware of that.

A lot of things really do apply directly - we should not steal or commit adultery, we should not be greedy or materialistic, we should put our trust in God. But some other things do not. Sometimes you have to first know what it meant to them then, and why, then ask how we apply that today.

[Sudsy]

While the principle may apply to one degree or another, it is limited to the book of Revelation and the author did not have the whole of scripture or even the NT in view. The phrase "the book of this prophecy" limits it to the book of Revelation. This perfectly illustrates the whole issue, we tend to read through scripture rather than reading it for what it actually says or the limits it self imposes. "A text taken out of context becomes a pretext."

I agree.

I like John Walton's guideline: Scripture was written for us, but it was not written to us. We have to look at what God said to them, what it meant to them then, then ask what God is saying to us through that now. And that involves Holy Spirit discernment, together, as a community.

A good Mennonite example: Should real wine be normative for communion? If we insist on literal footwashing (which I appreciate), why not insist on using real wine? Most of us, I think, believe in simple obedience to the parts that make sense to us. Most of us have sets of things we read past, like baptisms for the dead, and do not apply directly. I think it's helpful to be aware of that.

A lot of things really do apply directly - we should not steal or commit adultery, we should not be greedy or materialistic, we should put our trust in God. But some other things do not. Sometimes you have to first know what it meant to them then, and why, then ask how we apply that today.

Community, Holy Spirit guided, discernment is an interesting topic. If we were all making decisions using this method, why are we not all coming to the same conclusions instead of so many splits that occur over the understandings and application of scriptures ? I suspect that it happens that some who attempt to take everything they can out of the Bible literally do not get their guidance from the Holy Spirit. Rather in their quest to be the most literal in their Bible practise as a community, the seeking of Holy Spirit's guidance is not primary.

[MaxPC]

Community, Holy Spirit guided, discernment is an interesting topic. If we were all making decisions using this method, why are we not all coming to the same conclusions instead of so many splits that occur over the understandings and application of scriptures ? I suspect that it happens that some who attempt to take everything they can out of the Bible literally do not get their guidance from the Holy Spirit. Rather in their quest to be the most literal in their Bible practise as a community, the seeking of Holy Spirit's guidance is not primary.

Either that or the Holy Spirit is speaking to them for their particular developmental stage and needs. God is quite patient with us all.

I have no problem with how others seek to approach the Bible. Everyone who truly seeks to know the Bible will go through developmental stages in their approach. My observations are that many at the beginning of their journey start with the exegetical methods. As one advances in years and continues the daily Bible reading, I have found that both myself and my cohort view those readings as a more personal application and praxis and move beyond the scholastic exegesis. To sum up, we see the Bible as a personal experience.

There does not seem to be only one way to walk with the Bible as long as the time includes prayer and listening to God.

However, I do question the agenda of those who try to excise the Bible bits wherein God addresses behaviors such as murder-abortion; homosexuality; disrespect of parents; etc. These are modern behaviors as well. Why are those individuals uncomfortable with the prohibitions of those behaviors?

Nevertheless, I trust God to deal with them just as I trust God to deal with me. Their issues are their issues.

[Bootstrap]

Community, Holy Spirit guided, discernment is an interesting topic. If we were all making decisions using this method, why are we not all coming to the same conclusions instead of so many splits that occur over the understandings and application of scriptures ? I suspect that it happens that some who attempt to take everything they can out of the Bible literally do not get their guidance from the Holy Spirit. Rather in their quest to be the most literal in their Bible practise as a community, the seeking of Holy Spirit's guidance is not primary.

Either that or the Holy Spirit is speaking to them for their particular developmental stage and needs. God is quite patient with us all.

I have no problem with how others seek to approach the Bible. Everyone who truly seeks to know the Bible will go through developmental stages in their approach. My observations are that many at the beginning of their journey start with the exegetical methods. As one advances in years and continues the daily Bible reading, I have found that both myself and my cohort view those readings as a more personal application and praxis and move beyond the scholastic exegesis. To sum up, we see the Bible as a personal experience.

There does not seem to be only one way to walk with the Bible as long as the time includes prayer and listening to God.

However, I do question the agenda of those who try to excise the Bible bits wherein God addresses behaviors such as murder-abortion; homosexuality; disrespect of parents; etc. These are modern behaviors as well. Why are those individuals uncomfortable with the prohibitions of those behaviors?

Nevertheless, I trust God to deal with them just as I trust God to deal with me. Their issues are their issues.

I agree. Well said.

Beyond that, I'm not sure that God always tells everyone to do the same thing. His expectations for Gentile Christians were different from his expectations for Jews or even Jewish Christians. For instance, Paul said this to the Galatians, who were Gentile believers:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

Yet after that, he had Timothy, who was part Jewish, circumcised in order to not cause offense with the Jews:

Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

I think circumcision had a different meaning to these two groups of Christians. For Jews, it was about being faithful to God's covenant. For Gentiles, it was about becoming Jewish and coming under the Law of Moses.

Galatians gives us some hints that lead in that direction:

On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.

As I read the New Testament, Jewish Christians continued to practice the things they chose not to impose on Gentiles in Acts 15:

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Jewish Christians do not say "you're right, we're going to stop doing these things". They say "we do not want to make it difficult for you to turn to God by imposing this on you. I assume the Jewish Christians continued to do these things.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Here my contribution. There are some key points I think are important for followers of Jesus, and they (hopefully) lead to proper understanding of the Bible.

1) The Word of God is the central pillar of our faith. God's greatest desire is to be known and adored by his creation, particularly by his set apart creation made in his image: Adam (humanity). God's attempts to make himself known by Adam are, by and large, called "The Word of God". The believer accepts his/her responsibility to know God intimately by valuing The Word of God, to fulfill God's deepest desire to be known, to know Him through his Word.

2) The Word of God is most perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ. "Many times, in many ways, God has spoken to us," the author of Hebrews tells us, "but today, he has spoken to us through his Son Jesus Christ." John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." Every instance of God's attempts to "be known" by Adam required the use of flawed human means, verbal or written language. Jesus is the perfect Word of God made flesh, a fully embodied incarnation of God, so that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father. In pur quest to know God, we should ultimately always look to Jesus.

3) The Bible is the most reliable, consistent, objective preservation of the Word of God, and should therefore be our unifying standard. The purpose of the Bible is to be a lasting testament of God's Word to Adam. Jesus existed in a time and place in history, and He gave his apostles authority to teach, preach, and eventually write down God's communication to his people: foremost, the story of who Jesus is (the gospel), but also in special epistles which speak to his disciples long after his ascension.

4) The church values the writings of the apostles and considered them worth preserving as instructive texts for the church of Christ throughout time. Although many epistles were written (for example, many believe Paul wrote 3 letters to the Corinthians), those we have preserved and canonized in the NT are those which the church specifically considered valuable. They were disseminated throughout the world. A letter written to the Ephesians was considered valuable to the whole church, so it did not stay in Ephasus. Some letters remained local, but all letters we have canonized today are canonized specifically because they were thought to be valuable on a universal scale, not a local scale.

5) The default understanding of the NT writings is that they are universally applicable to the church, irrespective of time, geography, culture, etc. This largely stems from #4, above. Letters that were so specific to a local congregation generally didn't get propagated. The letter to Philemon was only spread because many churches throughout the known world found its contents extremely valuable and instructive, and revelatory of the mind of God.

6) The default view of the NT is that it is applicable for churches/Christians today. Although there might be a few passages here and there which speak only to a specific local incident, the default understanding of a NT writing is that it is written with the intent to be read, understood, and applied by any church, in any time, in any place. The default understanding of any passage STARTS at the understanding of "this is for us" and then moves to "this is not for us, this is for them back then" ONLY IF sufficient contextual evidence is provided. When Paul says "To them I say (not the Lord, but I)..." perhaps we can conclude that this passage doesn't apply to us. When Paul uses hyper-specific contextual clues, (like giving instruction to specifically named people) perhaps we can conclude this "isn't applicable to us". Otherwise, we rest on the default that it applies to us.

7) Finally, look through the lens of the Great Commission. Jesus' words in Matthew 28 sum up the entirety of the Gospel, both its indicative and its primary imperatives:
1. Jesus is Lord ("All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me")
2. God is with us and can be perfectly known ("Behold, I am with you, even to the end of the age.")
3. We are to teach the whole world about Jesus and how/why to follow Him ("Go, and make disciples of all nations...")
4. We are to baptize them. (..."baptizing the in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.")
5. We are to teach them to obey ALL that Jesus taught. ("Teaching them to obey EVERYTHING that I have commanded you.")
It is this last point which speaks to how we approach the Bible. The apostles went into their preaching and writing with these instructions in mind. Therefore, our default assumption should be that anything written as instructive or prescriptive in the NT is understood as ultimately coming from Jesus. We don't have a record of Jesus instructing others to not wear jewelry or anything that draws attention to the "outward" nature, instead of the "inward" nature. But Paup and Timothy both teach this. Our first assumption should be that Jesus taught this to his disciples, and it was not recorded in the four gospel accounts we have today. "Jesus said and did many more things, but if they were all written down, all the worlds books could not contain them." Again, this is speaking to our default assumption, and the burden of proof lies in the axiom "This is not taught by Jesus" rather than the axiom "this is taught by Jesus." Examples of the headcovering, modesty, homosexuality, etc. are all recorded in the epistles but not in the gospel narratives but that does not mean they were not taught by Jesus!

--------

As followers of Jesus, we take the entirety of the NT writings seriously, and where they are instructive, our default assumption is that they are directly instructive for all churches, in all times and in all places, and therefore, they are applicable to us in our time and in our place.

[MaxPC]

Here my contribution. There are some key points I think are important for followers of Jesus, and they (hopefully) lead to proper understanding of the Bible.

1) The Word of God is the central pillar of our faith. God's greatest desire is to be known and adored by his creation, particularly by his set apart creation made in his image: Adam (humanity). God's attempts to make himself known by Adam are, by and large, called "The Word of God". The believer accepts his/her responsibility to know God intimately by valuing The Word of God, to fulfill God's deepest desire to be known, to know Him through his Word.

2) The Word of God is most perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ. "Many times, in many ways, God has spoken to us," the author of Hebrews tells us, "but today, he has spoken to us through his Son Jesus Christ." John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." Every instance of God's attempts to "be known" by Adam required the use of flawed human means, verbal or written language. Jesus is the perfect Word of God made flesh, a fully embodied incarnation of God, so that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father. In pur quest to know God, we should ultimately always look to Jesus.

3) The Bible is the most reliable, consistent, objective preservation of the Word of God, and should therefore be our unifying standard. The purpose of the Bible is to be a lasting testament of God's Word to Adam. Jesus existed in a time and place in history, and He gave his apostles authority to teach, preach, and eventually write down God's communication to his people: foremost, the story of who Jesus is (the gospel), but also in special epistles which speak to his disciples long after his ascension.

4) The church values the writings of the apostles and considered them worth preserving as instructive texts for the church of Christ throughout time. Although many epistles were written (for example, many believe Paul wrote 3 letters to the Corinthians), those we have preserved and canonized in the NT are those which the church specifically considered valuable. They were disseminated throughout the world. A letter written to the Ephesians was considered valuable to the whole church, so it did not stay in Ephasus. Some letters remained local, but all letters we have canonized today are canonized specifically because they were thought to be valuable on a universal scale, not a local scale.

5) The default understanding of the NT writings is that they are universally applicable to the church, irrespective of time, geography, culture, etc. This largely stems from #4, above. Letters that were so specific to a local congregation generally didn't get propagated. The letter to Philemon was only spread because many churches throughout the known world found its contents extremely valuable and instructive, and revelatory of the mind of God.

6) The default view of the NT is that it is applicable for churches/Christians today. Although there might be a few passages here and there which speak only to a specific local incident, the default understanding of a NT writing is that it is written with the intent to be read, understood, and applied by any church, in any time, in any place. The default understanding of any passage STARTS at the understanding of "this is for us" and then moves to "this is not for us, this is for them back then" ONLY IF sufficient contextual evidence is provided. When Paul says "To them I say (not the Lord, but I)..." perhaps we can conclude that this passage doesn't apply to us. When Paul uses hyper-specific contextual clues, (like giving instruction to specifically named people) perhaps we can conclude this "isn't applicable to us". Otherwise, we rest on the default that it applies to us.

7) Finally, look through the lens of the Great Commission. Jesus' words in Matthew 28 sum up the entirety of the Gospel, both its indicative and its primary imperatives:
1. Jesus is Lord ("All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me")
2. God is with us and can be perfectly known ("Behold, I am with you, even to the end of the age.")
3. We are to teach the whole world about Jesus and how/why to follow Him ("Go, and make disciples of all nations...")
4. We are to baptize them. (..."baptizing the in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.")
5. We are to teach them to obey ALL that Jesus taught. ("Teaching them to obey EVERYTHING that I have commanded you.")
It is this last point which speaks to how we approach the Bible. The apostles went into their preaching and writing with these instructions in mind. Therefore, our default assumption should be that anything written as instructive or prescriptive in the NT is understood as ultimately coming from Jesus. We don't have a record of Jesus instructing others to not wear jewelry or anything that draws attention to the "outward" nature, instead of the "inward" nature. But Paup and Timothy both teach this. Our first assumption should be that Jesus taught this to his disciples, and it was not recorded in the four gospel accounts we have today. "Jesus said and did many more things, but if they were all written down, all the worlds books could not contain them." Again, this is speaking to our default assumption, and the burden of proof lies in the axiom "This is not taught by Jesus" rather than the axiom "this is taught by Jesus." Examples of the headcovering, modesty, homosexuality, etc. are all recorded in the epistles but not in the gospel narratives but that does not mean they were not taught by Jesus!

--------

As followers of Jesus, we take the entirety of the NT writings seriously, and where they are instructive, our default assumption is that they are directly instructive for all churches, in all times and in all places, and therefore, they are applicable to us in our time and in our place.

Indeed and amen.

[Bootstrap]

6) The default view of the NT is that it is applicable for churches/Christians today. Although there might be a few passages here and there which speak only to a specific local incident, the default understanding of a NT writing is that it is written with the intent to be read, understood, and applied by any church, in any time, in any place. The default understanding of any passage STARTS at the understanding of "this is for us" and then moves to "this is not for us, this is for them back then" ONLY IF sufficient contextual evidence is provided. When Paul says "To them I say (not the Lord, but I)..." perhaps we can conclude that this passage doesn't apply to us. When Paul uses hyper-specific contextual clues, (like giving instruction to specifically named people) perhaps we can conclude this "isn't applicable to us". Otherwise, we rest on the default that it applies to us.

How would you apply this to:

1. Circumcision, as discussed in my last post
2. Baptism for the dead
3. Communion wine

FWIW, I think you are thinking this through very carefully, I respect what you are writing. I suspect that most things that are said in a sermon to Christians today are probably applicable to Christians in other churches, but some are specific to a congregation. I imagine it was similar back then.

I'm not sure that I know where to find "the default view of the NT" in the New Testament, I see letters that are clearly written to specific congregations, but also copied and sent to other congregations because they are edifying.

I don't know that there's a set of formal rules to tell us when a given part of Galatians is not applicable to Jewish Christians, for instance, but I suspect that they would have known that the things Paul says about circumcision in that letter are not meant to say circumcision has the same meaning to Jews that it does to Gentiles. It was obvious to them back then. But for us, it can take some work to understand the things that were obvious to them.

[Sudsy]

Here my contribution. There are some key points I think are important for followers of Jesus, and they (hopefully) lead to proper understanding of the Bible.

1) The Word of God is the central pillar of our faith. God's greatest desire is to be known and adored by his creation, particularly by his set apart creation made in his image: Adam (humanity). God's attempts to make himself known by Adam are, by and large, called "The Word of God". The believer accepts his/her responsibility to know God intimately by valuing The Word of God, to fulfill God's deepest desire to be known, to know Him through his Word.

2) The Word of God is most perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ. "Many times, in many ways, God has spoken to us," the author of Hebrews tells us, "but today, he has spoken to us through his Son Jesus Christ." John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." Every instance of God's attempts to "be known" by Adam required the use of flawed human means, verbal or written language. Jesus is the perfect Word of God made flesh, a fully embodied incarnation of God, so that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father. In pur quest to know God, we should ultimately always look to Jesus.

3) The Bible is the most reliable, consistent, objective preservation of the Word of God, and should therefore be our unifying standard. The purpose of the Bible is to be a lasting testament of God's Word to Adam. Jesus existed in a time and place in history, and He gave his apostles authority to teach, preach, and eventually write down God's communication to his people: foremost, the story of who Jesus is (the gospel), but also in special epistles which speak to his disciples long after his ascension.

4) The church values the writings of the apostles and considered them worth preserving as instructive texts for the church of Christ throughout time. Although many epistles were written (for example, many believe Paul wrote 3 letters to the Corinthians), those we have preserved and canonized in the NT are those which the church specifically considered valuable. They were disseminated throughout the world. A letter written to the Ephesians was considered valuable to the whole church, so it did not stay in Ephasus. Some letters remained local, but all letters we have canonized today are canonized specifically because they were thought to be valuable on a universal scale, not a local scale.

5) The default understanding of the NT writings is that they are universally applicable to the church, irrespective of time, geography, culture, etc. This largely stems from #4, above. Letters that were so specific to a local congregation generally didn't get propagated. The letter to Philemon was only spread because many churches throughout the known world found its contents extremely valuable and instructive, and revelatory of the mind of God.

6) The default view of the NT is that it is applicable for churches/Christians today. Although there might be a few passages here and there which speak only to a specific local incident, the default understanding of a NT writing is that it is written with the intent to be read, understood, and applied by any church, in any time, in any place. The default understanding of any passage STARTS at the understanding of "this is for us" and then moves to "this is not for us, this is for them back then" ONLY IF sufficient contextual evidence is provided. When Paul says "To them I say (not the Lord, but I)..." perhaps we can conclude that this passage doesn't apply to us. When Paul uses hyper-specific contextual clues, (like giving instruction to specifically named people) perhaps we can conclude this "isn't applicable to us". Otherwise, we rest on the default that it applies to us.

7) Finally, look through the lens of the Great Commission. Jesus' words in Matthew 28 sum up the entirety of the Gospel, both its indicative and its primary imperatives:
1. Jesus is Lord ("All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me")
2. God is with us and can be perfectly known ("Behold, I am with you, even to the end of the age.")
3. We are to teach the whole world about Jesus and how/why to follow Him ("Go, and make disciples of all nations...")
4. We are to baptize them. (..."baptizing the in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.")
5. We are to teach them to obey ALL that Jesus taught. ("Teaching them to obey EVERYTHING that I have commanded you.")
It is this last point which speaks to how we approach the Bible. The apostles went into their preaching and writing with these instructions in mind. Therefore, our default assumption should be that anything written as instructive or prescriptive in the NT is understood as ultimately coming from Jesus. We don't have a record of Jesus instructing others to not wear jewelry or anything that draws attention to the "outward" nature, instead of the "inward" nature. But Paup and Timothy both teach this. Our first assumption should be that Jesus taught this to his disciples, and it was not recorded in the four gospel accounts we have today. "Jesus said and did many more things, but if they were all written down, all the worlds books could not contain them." Again, this is speaking to our default assumption, and the burden of proof lies in the axiom "This is not taught by Jesus" rather than the axiom "this is taught by Jesus." Examples of the headcovering, modesty, homosexuality, etc. are all recorded in the epistles but not in the gospel narratives but that does not mean they were not taught by Jesus!

--------

As followers of Jesus, we take the entirety of the NT writings seriously, and where they are instructive, our default assumption is that they are directly instructive for all churches, in all times and in all places, and therefore, they are applicable to us in our time and in our place.

Thankyou for the explanations for your view. Although I personally don't agree with having a 'default' position that the Bible itself is our guide but rather that we have been given the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth and without His guidance, we can easily go astray in how we interpret the Bible and obtain our guidance.

I do believe God leads us through the use of the Bible but it is not the only way in how He leads us. It has only been a couple hundred years since some of this world has had personal access to a Bible but I believe God has led every believer who received the message of salvation throughout history by His Spirit.

One problem off the top is that there is not agreement on what constitutes the canon of scripture whether it be 73 books or 66 books or some other collection. And this results in some very serious applications of scripture. However, God does speak to us through these books made into one and we do need to search these out with the Spirit's guidance. As you say, we need to take what is written in the Bible seriously.

I don't disregard what Paul taught that Jesus did not teach according to the Bible but I have my doubts Jesus taught all the things that Paul taught. To me, how we apply what Jesus and Paul and others taught is through the work of the Holy Spirit in leading us into truths applicable to our own lives.

Anyway, some of thoughts, right or wrong.