Basis for Paul's Authority?

[TheLong]

By that I mean, what is the basis for Pauline theology (since not all of the Epistles were written by the Apostle Paul) in the Bible? Why is it that we place so much emphasis and authority on his interpretation and ideas instead of those of other Early Church Fathers?

It seems that sometimes the theology shown in the Epistles almost contradicts that of the Gospels themselves, and these Epistles have influenced and really birthed a lot of the doctrines and ideas of those like Martin Luther, John Calvin etc, creating a Christianity that seems more doctrine/theology based than Christ-centric.

That is merely my own impression, but I really am wondering why it is that we place such an emphasis on the Epistles. It seems sometimes we quote them even more than the Gospels themselves.

Edit: I'm sorry about the triple post everyone. If you have something to add, and I really hope you do, please post it in this one : http://www.christianforums.com/t7417083/

 

[drich0150]

The gospel writer of Luke records Saul's conversion in Acts 9. To doubt Paul legitimate Ascension into His roles of an "Apostle not chosen by man, but by God" would bring one of the Gospels into question as well.

Wherever there seems to be a contradiction between a gospel and Paul's writings, there is a misunderstanding of the original intent of the gospel or the writing of Paul.

 

[Van]

Hi The Long, I frequently see these vague assertions of the difference between the theology of Paul and the Gospels, but never a list of say three differences, with references to what the gospel writer said and what Paul said. Instead, the assertion is stated and then a question is asked which accepts the premise as sound. Pardon me if I see it as merely an attack on Christianity devoid of substance.

A theology that "almost contradicts" is one that totally does not contradict.

 

[Bible2]

Basis for Paul's Authority?

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Christ, is his being an eyewitness of Christ and receiving his ministry directly from Christ: "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1).

When Christ first appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, Christ told him: "I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me" (Acts 26:16-18).

When the other apostles saw how greatly Christ worked through Paul (as also through Barnabas), they accepted them as fellow apostles: "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship". "The apostles, Barnabas and Paul" (Acts 14:14).

The apostle Peter even expressly wrote to believers confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture: "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

what is the basis for Pauline theology

The basis for Pauline theology is direct revelation to him from Christ: "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12).

That's why Pauline theology is in accord with the rest of the Bible.

It seems that sometimes the theology shown in the Epistles almost contradicts that of the Gospels themselves

Actually, it can be shown that nothing in the Pauline epistles necessarily contradicts anything in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

these Epistles have influenced and really birthed a lot of the doctrines and ideas of those like Martin Luther, John Calvin etc, creating a Christianity that seems more doctrine/theology based than Christ-centric.

Actually, Paul's epistles are very Christ-centric. In Pauls's epistles (assuming that Hebrews was written by Silas/Silvanus), Paul mentions "Christ" or "Jesus" or the "Lord" almost 1,000 times. And his whole gospel message is always centered on Christ: "Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes........

 

[AirForceTeacher]

Perhaps OP could produce a list of these contradictions?

 

[wayseer]

By that I mean, what is the basis for Pauline theology (since not all of the Epistles were written by the Apostle Paul) in the Bible? Why is it that we place so much emphasis and authority on his interpretation and ideas instead of those of other Early Church Fathers?

Hi, and welcome.

Good question.

Paul claims his basis for his authority by claiming he is the 'least' of the Apostles - that his has the imprimatur of Christ is a similar manner to those who has been with the living Jesus.

This is Paul's 'divine' authority.

From there Paul extends his 'authority' with his work among the Gentiles. And it was his work that proved enduring as the churches he had started all escaped the devastation visited on Palestine as a result of the war which started in 68 AD and resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem.

This may be Paul's 'historical' authority.

Finally Paul developed a theology that cemented the place of the Gentiles within God's promise - the new covenant.

This is Paul's 'theological' authority.

It seems that sometimes the theology shown in the Epistles almost contradicts that of the Gospels themselves, and these Epistles have influenced and really birthed a lot of the doctrines and ideas of those like Martin Luther, John Calvin etc, creating a Christianity that seems more doctrine/theology based than Christ-centric.

We have to remember that Gospels were written well after Paul wrote his letters and addressed contemporary social issues which were different to that which Paul confronted. Paul was all about separating oneself from the cultural situation while the Gospels take on a far more accommodating view of society. So, Yes, there is tension between the Epistles and the Gospels.

That is merely my own impression, but I really am wondering why it is that we place such an emphasis on the Epistles. It seems sometimes we quote them even more than the Gospels themselves.

Paul's theology certainly forms the basis of Christianity. Without Paul we would be scratching around looking for some theological leads. However, I don't think we place undue emphasis on the Epistles at the expense of the Gospels. Any such emphasis may well be our perception rather than reality.

Just my views here.

But a worthy discussion and I look forward to the contributions.

 

[Knee V]

Also, although Paul did not "immediately" confer with flesh and blood (didn't meet up with the rest of the apostles), he did so later, and was accepted as an apostle by the rest of the apostles.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches love the apostle Paul, yet their understandings of what Paul wrote often differ greatly from the interpretations of the reformers. There were many many centuries of Christian theology (as well as commentary on Paul) before Luther and Calvin came on the scene.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The basis of the Apostle Paul's authority is the fact that he was "commissioned"(for lack of a better word) by Christ Himself!

Amen!

 

[New_Wineskin]

It seems that sometimes the theology shown in the Epistles almost contradicts that of the Gospels themselves, and these Epistles have influenced and really birthed a lot of the doctrines and ideas of those like Martin Luther, John Calvin etc, creating a Christianity that seems more doctrine/theology based than Christ-centric.

Well , we could stop having the Scriptures as having *any* authority . Or , we could simply not have Paul's writings as part of the Scriptures .

Both of these would be disliked by many . So , we are left with what we have .


For me , Paul writes a lot to those who were not entrenched in tradition and gives great examples on how to deal with those that would wish to trap others in tradition . If that seems to contradict other writings , so be it . I don't see the contradictions .

 

[ARBITER01]

Paul's basis of authority is from Jesus Himself, and ultimately GOD The Father..

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),

His ministry was and still is of amazing worth to us as Christians, and will always be. As the 13th apostle, his spiritual experiences are equally ours to claim since he was separate from the 12.

 

[cyberlizard]

The basis of the Apostle Paul's authority is the fact that he was "commissioned"(for lack of a better word) by Christ Himself!

Amen!

but we only have his own account of it.... there is no evidence Luke was a witness to what happened on the road to damascus and so presumption must mean he heard about it (probably from Paul himself).


Steve

p.s. just playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

but we only have his own account of it.... there is no evidence Luke was a witness to what happened on the road to damascus and so presumption must mean he heard about it (probably from Paul himself).


Steve

p.s. just playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

That is what the Jews and Muslims keep telling me

 

[cyberlizard]

but we only have his own account of it.... there is no evidence Luke was a witness to what happened on the road to damascus and so presumption must mean he heard about it (probably from Paul himself).


Steve

p.s. just playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

That is what the Jews and Muslims keep telling me

true though!

 

[Bible2]

Ananias confirmed that Paul had actually seen Jesus on the road to Damascus: "There was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
|
Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
|
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened.
|
Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ" (Acts 9:10-22).

"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1).

There is no proof against Paul's claims to apostleship. He is innocent in his apostolic claims until proven guilty. And his work for Christ as an apostle should be proof enough that he is not a false apostle: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matthew 7:16-18).

After his conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul also fulfilled all four of the signs spoken of by Jesus with regard to believers: 1. "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils" (Mark 16:17). "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).

2. "They shall speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17). "I thank my God, I [Paul] speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Corinthians 14:18).

3. "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" (Mark 16:18). "And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm" (Acts 28:3-5).

4. "They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mark 16:18). "And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him" (Acts 28:8).

So there is no reason to reject Paul's authority: "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:36-37).

 

[freeport]

By that I mean, what is the basis for Pauline theology (since not all of the Epistles were written by the Apostle Paul) in the Bible? Why is it that we place so much emphasis and authority on his interpretation and ideas instead of those of other Early Church Fathers?

It seems that sometimes the theology shown in the Epistles almost contradicts that of the Gospels themselves, and these Epistles have influenced and really birthed a lot of the doctrines and ideas of those like Martin Luther, John Calvin etc, creating a Christianity that seems more doctrine/theology based than Christ-centric.

That is merely my own impression, but I really am wondering why it is that we place such an emphasis on the Epistles. It seems sometimes we quote them even more than the Gospels themselves.

Edit: I'm sorry about the triple post everyone. If you have something to add, and I really hope you do, please post it in this one : http://www.christianforums.com/t7417083/

Putting "authority" on anyone apart from their words is a dangerous practice to engage on. One has to try and understand what they are actually saying and comprehend caveats and such. Paul, as it was specifically written of, has especially difficult writings which many confuse.


We have the ability to weigh, and are expected to weigh rightly. Someone can say, "You must believe argument X because Y taught it"... when what they are really getting at is the creation of a strawman argument by sleight of hand, or bait and switch. They are really saying, "My interpretation of argument X is based on the authority of Y who taught it".


Paul's words are extremely weighty and reasonable.

We can argue, "Oh well, the canon" and so on, but ultimately, the man's words stand just fine on their own as long as people do not distort them.

 

[SpiritDriven]

The Basis for Pauls Authority comes directly out of the mouth of the Glorified and risen Christ.....read your Bible.

What struck me recently was the way God dealt with Paul as the example for us all.

Did Paul choose to persecute the early Church ? answer No it was God who hardened him to it

Did Paul choose to become an Apostle answer no, Paul became an Apostle of Jesus Christ via the Will of God alone.

What a Great Example God used, the last person on Earth you would have thought God would call as an Apostle....the man God hardened to persecute the early Church.

There goes the Doctrine of Free Will out the window !

 

[ittarter]

Actually, it can be shown that nothing in the Pauline epistles necessarily contradicts anything in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Such a task is impossible. It is always within the bounds of possibility to find a contradiction or "tension" between two different literary works or within a single literary work. A responsible reader must address purported tensions as they present themselves in order to determine whether or not they are true tensions. As I'm sure we would agree, most purported tensions are hardly tensions at all.

However, there are some obvious differences that need to be dealt with. The biggest ones might be:
1. the role of the Jewish and Gentile faith communities within the larger program of God's kingdom
2. the structure of the gospel -- narrative vs. didactic
3. mystical union with God (including the topic of the Holy Spirit)
4. teaching through deed and parable versus the prominence of logical argumentation

Those are just a few I could think of, each of which could lead to interesting threads in their own right.

It is pointless to say that the gospels and the Pauline literature may be "reconciled." Anything may be reconciled, given enough legwork and enough creativity. However, what is important is to note how each gospel, the authentic Pauline literature, the pseudo Pauline literature, and so forth, each forms the gospel or the Christian faith in a different way. We may always appeal to the circumstantial nature of all of these documents, if we wish to argue a common ground shared between them all, but of course, any such common ground is largely theoretical and ultimately only serves to darken and minimize the highlights of extant literature.

Anyway, all this to say, Paul was an extraordinary historical force to whom every Christian owes a gigantic debt, because without him Christianity would have never become a religion in its own right.

 

[Frogster]

but we only have his own account of it.... there is no evidence Luke was a witness to what happened on the road to damascus and so presumption must mean he heard about it (probably from Paul himself).


Steve

p.s. just playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

Would you presume that of OT writings?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The basis of the Apostle Paul's authority is the fact that he was "commissioned"(for lack of a better word) by Christ Himself!

Amen!

Is there anywhere in the OT/OC Scriptures prophecying Saul/Paul as coming? Perhaps that would also help to convince the Jews and Muslims of Paul's Divine Commission just as we Christians are convinced he was.....