Christianity without Paul

[RDKirk]

We are yet again in violent agreement. I think "Righttruth" is arguing thus:

1. Jesus teaches that we need to "endure to the end" to be saved;
2. Paul teaches that we are saved on the basis of a one-time commitment.
3. Therefore, Paul contradicts Jesus.

Well, that logic is correct, but I suggest premise 2 is mistaken or, to be more precise, is deeply underspecified and needs to be greatly elaborated on. And when it is, there is indeed no contradiction.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, many evangelicals will assert point number 2 "as is", thus enabling righttruth to make what I suggest is, in fact, a fallacious argument.

Yes, I think Paul was actually more "endure to the end" than many evangelicals today believe. I suspect Paul did not, for instance, regard Demas as saved in 2 Timothy 4.

And I suspect Paul would consider the phrase "one-time commitment" an oxymoron.

 

[RDKirk]

The Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance the preaching of Jesus no matter what you read; that helps in staying on the way of Jesus.

Since you weren't around when Jesus preached, how do you know what the "preaching of Jesus" was?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, I think Paul was actually more "endure to the end" than many evangelicals today believe. I suspect Paul did not, for instance, regard Demas as saved in 2 Timothy 4.

And I suspect Paul would consider the phrase "one-time commitment" an oxymoron.

Given the lack of contextual support, I find most conclusions regarding Demas to be quite speculative in nature. At best, what we can say is that Demas, having loved this present world, had deserted Paul and gone to Thessalonica.

 

[RDKirk]

Given the lack of contextual support, I find most conclusions regarding Demas to be quite speculative in nature. At best, what we can say is that Demas, having loved this present world, had deserted Paul and gone to Thessalonica.

"I suspect" does not denote a "conclusion."

 

[Righttruth]

I do not think this reasoning is valid. Yes, Jesus did indeed put an end to many Old Testament practices. But that is hardly grounds for concluding that He could not start new "rituals" to mark the beginning of the New Covenant. In fact, it would be profoundly surprising if He did not - if God is initiating a new covenant, it makes perfect sense that He (God) would initiate rituals to celebrate this new covenant.

That is going back to the OT ways.

 

[Righttruth]

OhOh now you're paraphrasing Paul.

Romans 5:2
Gal. 5:5
Col. 1:23
1 Cor. 1:8
Rom. 2:7

No. Just because the word 'hope' occurs, it doesn't mean I am paraphrasing Paul. Paul has been misinterpreted with a few verses conveniently to develop 'Once-saved-always-saved', 'faith alone', ' automatic salvation through faith'. etc.

 

[Righttruth]

Indeed. And, in fact, I know someone who agrees with this. That person wrote these words:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality he will give eternal life.

...and these words as well:

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

These words were written by, yes, Paul. And both these teachings clearly express the position that endurance to the end is needed for salvation.

But such verses were never given importance by nominal Christians who want salvation at beck and call of them

 

[Righttruth]

Since you weren't around when Jesus preached, how do you know what the "preaching of Jesus" was?

God with all His infinite wisdom gave four books on Gospel, not just one.

 

[RDKirk]

God with all His infinite wisdom gave four books on Gospel, not just one.

I'll go back to my earlier question. How do you know those four books are authentic in the slightest? How do you know they weren't written by group of 6th century monks?

 

[Righttruth]

I'll go back to my earlier question. How do you know those four books are authentic in the slightest? How do you know they weren't written by group of 6th century monks?

The preaching and life of Jesus are something unique. It is not found in any other religion. Examples: Sermon on the Mount, John 8: 1-11, John 8:32, John 16:33, etc. There was no possibility of simple, humble and semi-literate folks could put that in writings with their own thinking (Excepting Luke who compiled information from other strong believers). Scholarship is bound to be shallow spiritually when understood sans life of Jesus.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance the preaching of Jesus no matter what you read; that helps in staying on the way of Jesus.

Are you kidding me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ToBeLoved]

But such verses were never given importance by nominal Christians who want salvation at beck and call of them

Aren't we taking about what's in the Bible?

I think it's a cop out to use words like nominal Christians not believing something so you do not defend your viewpoint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'll go back to my earlier question. How do you know those four books are authentic in the slightest? How do you know they weren't written by group of 6th century monks?

Yup. Because he said he only believes the OT is scripture. So that does not include the gospels or any words of Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Righttruth]

Are you kidding me?

John 14
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

 

[Righttruth]

Aren't we taking about what's in the Bible?

I think it's a cop out to use words like nominal Christians not believing something so you do not defend your viewpoint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bible also records the adultery of David

 

[ToBeLoved]

Jesus, who put an end to redundant rituals of the OT

What redundant rituals are you speaking of and what was the reason for these rituals?

 

[ToBeLoved]

John 14
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

You cannot read anything crazy and think the Holy Spirit will show you every fault in it. Over a long period of time He will point you in the right direction, but one needs to have a relationship with God where they know how to listen. The Holy Spirit mostly leads towards spiritual things. We have God's Word which is our main guide.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Bible also records the adultery of David

So you are comparing David with nominal Christians who are not very close to Christ in their Christian walk? That would be a big mistake. The fact is that God loved David because of his faith and steadfastness. You must think that a sin is more powerful than faithfulness and love.

 

[ToBeLoved]

We are yet again in violent agreement. I think "Righttruth" is arguing thus:

1. Jesus teaches that we need to "endure to the end" to be saved;
2. Paul teaches that we are saved on the basis of a one-time commitment.
3. Therefore, Paul contradicts Jesus.

Well, that logic is correct, but I suggest premise 2 is mistaken or, to be more precise, is deeply underspecified and needs to be greatly elaborated on. And when it is, there is indeed no contradiction.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, many evangelicals will assert point number 2 "as is", thus enabling righttruth to make what I suggest is, in fact, a fallacious argument.

Righttruth, are you confirming that you believe the above? or something close to it?

 

[Standing Up]

No. Just because the word 'hope' occurs, it doesn't mean I am paraphrasing Paul. Paul has been misinterpreted with a few verses conveniently to develop 'Once-saved-always-saved', 'faith alone', ' automatic salvation through faith'. etc.

So you're against Paul because you think he is misinterpreted, rather than Paul got it wrong.