t
Let's stop messing around with this, Doctor. The point was simple. You opposed the idea (and I also opposed the idea) of that revisionist history about St. Paul. But you said that the idea was attributable to "1500 years after" -- which means the Protestant Reformation. You tried to talk around that in later posts when I brought it up, but that wording does NOT refer to a different time in Church history than what you clearly said in the first place.
And here's the deal with that. You are wrong to attribute such a notion to the Protestant Reformation--Luther, Calvin, et al. It is contrary to what those people believed. It's a development of later times. And it's not associated with any significant segment of Christianity.
That said, if you want to argue that "If there had not been a Reformation, there wouldn't been this later renunciation of Reformation beliefs," you might as well argue that if there had not been a Medieval Papal church, there wouldn't have been a Reformation, either!
If you don't want to acknowledge any of this, then I'll just let it go. It was never expected by me to become some "do or die" debate.
As this is a response to my last question, then am I to understand your position is that none of the Reformers including Luther, Calvin...etc, had any issues with the Church's teaching on/understanding of justification?
Have never come across that claim and it would be an odd claim to make, as must folks (right or wrong) credit Luther alone with "faith alone".
I don't feel the need to acknowledge an error I did not make or agree with your continued gross misrepresentation of what I said. The only reason anyone could have to attack that Apostle's teachings/letters and the Apostle himself, at least as it relates to this thread, is to undermine the Church's expressed and long held meaning of justification as supported by those same letters. It makes absolutely no sense to try to understand someone speak of any Sacrament without first knowing what they mean by justification. So the Church's teachings on the Eucharist and Justification MUST go hand in hand and Saint Paul certainly seen as the greatest evangelical among the Apostles supporting those teachings. The comment you keep going on about was made to a poster who happens to agree with the Church (and me obviously) that the Apostle Paul supported those teachings on both justification and the Eucharist - which is also why that same poster claims Saint Paul was not even a real Apostle and went "rogue". Saying that about an Apostle is one way to dismiss the Church's view of justification.
That poster has to attack Saint Paul given that he gets Saint Paul is saying exactly what the Church says the Apostles says about jsutification/Eucharist. So, in order to claim the Church is wrong on the underlying teachings on justification and also by that certainly the Eucharist; Saint Paul MUST be discredited. Without a reformation declaring the Church wrong on justification, there is no need for anyone to go there with Saint Paul. To deny that connection - root in the reformation - is to fail to understand both the fundamentals of/behind the teaching on the Eucharist and reformation history itself.
No one who understands Saint Paul's letters that way (as that poster, the Church and I do) needs to go there unless they have issue with the underlying teaching of justification which supports the Church's teaching on the Eucharist. So this attack on this Apostle is driven by a need to attack the Church's teaching on justification, making that need the origin of such thoughts on Saint Paul. Your apparent denial aside, the root/cause/need for such an attack on Saint Paul is an attack on the Church's view of justification which is properly, correctly, accurately tied to the movement of ALL the reformers. That is true regardless of the innumerable, varied and contradicting positions people have since taken from the roots of that movement. Saying that is so IS NOT saying ANY particular reformer holds this particular view of Saint Paul. Obviously they could not hold the Church's understanding of Saint Paul and also disagree with the Church's position on justification. But that does NOT mean, instead of totally trashing the Apostle as some here do, the reformers could and indeed did understand Saint Paul differently than the Church. They had to or else reject him entirely as some later would/did. Both sets of people are coming to their positions for the same reason - to hold/defend a view of justification opposing the Church's view - which is a root all protesters share and all did/do to varying degree.
If there were a need to get more specific - and there is not - these particular ideas about discrediting Saint Paul we could perhaps guess these thoughts originate a couple hundred years later (after the reformation) in a German university - but the only reason those ideas need arise is a need to attempt to address any conflict one sees between one's understanding of that Apostle's letters and one's beliefs on justification, which is a conflict that only arises out of/from the reformation. So the roots of those thoughts on Saint Paul are still correctly laid on the Reformation. Also exactly the conflict/thoughts held by the poster that my original reply was to before you inserted yourself.
And again, since this has been my constant stance to you against your false claim of my unfairly lumping all Protestants into some united set of beliefs regarding whatever you wrongly think I think they practice as communion and now claiming I said all Protestants diss that Apostle; I can only say you are wrong about my posts, my meaning and my intent. I never once said that and your labor to claim otherwise appears to me to be motivated here by something else (besides perhaps wanting to rewrite reformation history on justification). Consider too that apparently no one else here took my remarks to that other poster the way you have.