I find it fascinating that the preponderance of scriptural authority that is quoted or referenced in my conversations with most other Christians is from Paul or the "early Christian fathers" who wrote the creeds. I often point out that most of our interpretations and beliefs which differ from theirs are based on what we believe the Bible teaches (particularly in the Gospels, James and the epistles of John) - and I get countered with Pauline pronouncements with nary an acknowledgment of the irony.For example, I have a hard time seeing how there would be an argument over the whole grace/faith/works discussion - or the individuality of the separate members of the Godhead - or, especially, the physical nature of the resurrection - if the Gospels were used as the doctrinal foundation, with the apostolic epistles interpreted through the lens of the Gospels. It seems foundational that the words attributed to Jesus would carry more import than the words of the apostles - or, phrased differently, that Jesus' words would be the key used to unlock the authentic meaning of the apostles' words. The fact that the opinions of the theologians who formulated the Catholic and Protestant creeds would be quoted as counters to the words of the Gospels and the first Christian leaders (Peter, James and John) baffles me, but I have seen and heard it happen too many times for it to be shocking anymore.
Revelations in Context
59 seconds ago