-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How should we read Paul?
- Thread starter Righttruth
- Start date
- Status
I realize that you inserted a different question in about "our transcendent standard to test truth", but that was not what I was referring to when you cut in. I was referring to the fact that the written word was all that we had before and during much of Paul's ministry, but since then (although we still have the written word) we do not live in the age of God primarily speaking through His word, but rather through the Spirit.
The question was specifically about "reading Paul." If we read what Paul wrote and disregard the Holy Spirit, then we disregard God...i.e. the transcended standard test...is greatly limited.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I believe I clearly laid out the scope:
You say X and claim to be speaking from the Holy Spirit, I do as well but we come to different conclusions.
What is the transcendent standard to test truth claims?
We do not have a God of confusion.
Upvote
0
Hahaha...therein lies the problem.
I do get your question, but you are wrong. When it comes to language...we do indeed have a God of confusion:
Genesis 11:8-9
So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Upvote
0
Of course. But referring to "reading Paul's epistles", we would do Christ no honor by continuing only in the written word and leaving out the Holy Spirit.
"Foundation?" Yes. Christ's complete direction? No.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That is not a valid response.
The confusion was caused for a much different reason. Christ was clear in His teachings. He also used Scripture to refute the Pharisees and rebuke Satan.
Jesus Christ's ministry was confirmed in Word and Power.
The apostles too confirmed the Gospel by the Scriptures and in Power by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus used the Scriptures to confirm His message. Why should you or anyone else believe they are above the standard set by Jesus Christ?
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I thought we were past the age of the written word. Therefore you cannot use anything written to defend your position.
What else do you have to offer to support your position God is a God who encourages confusion?
Upvote
0
We're not communicating (confusion at work). I am not suggesting that anyone is "above the standard set by Jesus Christ", but rather that, that is only part of what He advocated before sending the Holy Spirit. That was then, this is now.
Upvote
0
You are being argumentative. I did not say that the written word was no longer to be used, but that it is only part.
Upvote
0
I am disputing Paul's invention on interpreter. You can't categorize the Paul's epistles as scripture with man's thinking and accept that in toto. When something is disputed, you can't quote the same source as defense. That is not how truth is found. Show me the concept of interpreter from any other source in the entire Bible or in Paul's letters(other than 1 Corin.) For me, Jesus' words are final, and it rightly so for believers of Jesus, not Paul.
People of other religions also hold their sacred texts as final authority. How do you convince them of the truth?
Considering manipulated Bible as inerrant is as good as claiming person of Pope as infallible.
So you accept all kinds of concoction is noticed in speaking gibberish. That happens because the source itself is non acceptable.
Poor logic: connecting hypocrisy to good deed.
It would mean Paul relied on his wisdom, particularly, in his earlier letters. How far he conformed with the Gospel has to be verified.
Biased Pauline Christians are bound to have tunnel vision and perspective by ignoring the words of Jesus.
Upvote
0
That is the required first stage. Difficulty is its practice. We are guilty of that. Let us admit that instead of brushing it aside by leaning on compromise formulas of Paul to our destruction.
Upvote
0
Excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?"
Views of a Truth Seeker
Here are keen and relevant observations of a truth seeker: “I entered Southern Seminary thinking that this issue would very soon find a resolution. It did not. It only became more intense and prominent as the seminary years progressed. The hard commandments of the Sermon on the Mount increasingly seemed tailor made to my central interests in the violence of Christendom that was World War II. But to my dismay, the Seminary faculty did nothing to relieve my growing concern. A typical response was to assure me that no one could keep those commandments. “They are only meant to convict us of sin so that we will trust in the blood of Jesus for forgiveness.” I could never match those assurances with anything from the utterances of Jesus but found them contradicted on every hand.
Martin Luther, inspired by Paul, concluded that the Epistle of James was “an epistle of straw.” I, inspired by Jesus and James, have finally concluded that Paul was an apostle of straw. I still acknowledge Paul’s great zeal for Christ, but it was zeal for a Christ misunderstood. Paul’s suffering for Christ bespeaks his great love for him, but it was love for a Christ misconceived. His preaching of Christ was among the most effective the world has ever seen, but it was of a Christ mis-preached. What follows is an effort to present Paul as I have come to know him, minus his halo but yet clothed with a kind of respect that seems at times contradictory, even to me. Seeing Paul, as he really is – warts and all – does not detract from my admiration of the work he performed.
It is very unlikely that any of the early disciples thought of their own writings as scripture, with the possible exception of Paul [The author doubts even this]. I will explain this possible exception below. And would Peter have been one who characterized Paul’s letters as scripture? Hardly! (This assumes that Peter authored the Petrine epistles, which many doubt. I have no problem with Peter’s authorship, provided we allow for redactions such as this.) Could Paul have seen himself as filling the vacancy? No, for he would surely have made that his claim. The fact is that the remaining eleven were instrumental in the selection of Matthias to fill this vacancy as even Luke informs us in The Acts, and had Paul seen himself as being Judas’ replacement, Luke would certainly have seen him as such. I believe, nevertheless, that Paul was Judas’s successor – as traitor! Judas betrayed him in his flesh; Paul betrayed him in his spirit. I see him as one who was, at a certain level, a man of great integrity who could persuade and deceive others only because he had first persuaded himself, which contributed to the effectiveness of his ministry. He preached in all sincerity what he really believed. Furthermore, a portion of his doctrine is wonderfully and gloriously true, which renders it all the more deceptive as even Paul could have understood from the standpoint of one who could accuse other “apostles” of disguising themselves as “servants of righteousness” (II Corinthians 11:15). Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:2-4). This is his unequivocal assertion of one of his most basic convictions. But look at what he did: And he came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (Acts 16:1-3).
If this isn’t inconsistency and compromise, I would not know how to define these things. Of course, one could defend Paul here by saying that the Galatian letter was written long after he had Timothy circumcised, and his views matured during the interval. Let us then say that is the case, and look at the implication: His views changed from one thing to another during the period when he was preaching his gospel throughout the world. The Truth, however, did not change during that period, for that is unchanging. He therefore could not have been preaching the Truth during this period of changing views, yet he claimed to be preaching the same gospel from beginning to end. This leaves us with no basis for believing that he ever preached the True Gospel! Did he really see a bright light? And did he really hear a voice? I believe he did, although it is questionable that others saw or heard them. The contradictions in the accounts of his revelation are sufficient to cause us to question his objectivity at the moment and his veracity afterwards.
In his defence before the Jerusalem crowd as Luke related in Acts 22:9 he said, “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.” But then Luke described Paul’s experience in Chapter 9 thusly: The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:7) Paul claimed that the gospel which was preached by him is not man’s gospel, for he said, “I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Are we to believe that Jesus communicated directly to Paul the doctrine of his return to earth in Paul’s lifetime? He said above, “. . . this I declare unto you by the word of the Lord.” If so, Jesus was also mistaken. But in this case, Jesus can no more be identified with Truth. I much prefer some other option, such as that Paul was the one mistaken; that he had visions during which he believed he was communicating with Jesus, when he actually was not. He therefore received his gospel, not from Jesus, but from whatever source it was that communicated with him during his visions. This is not the place to expand on the significance of this. Here it is only necessary to demonstrate that Paul could be in error in a case in which we can be certain he erred, for this alone is sufficient to justify our questioning everything he taught about Jesus Christ.
So, Paul’s doctrine of Jesus’ soon coming was clearly erroneous, being falsified by two thousand years of history Paul quotes at times without any regard to the context in which the passage is found in the Old Testament. Justification by Faith Justification by faith only and apart from works of the law can be said to be a major theme of Paul’s gospel. Indeed, I suppose this could be said to be his gospel, his good news, in a nutshell. After stating his case in Romans 3, he goes on in Chapter 4 to call forth the example of Abraham to cement his case.
A similar argument is also presented in the Galatian letter. Focusing on the statement in Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (or justification), Paul proceeds to set forth the idea that this justification came to Abraham before he was circumcised, and therefore is independent of circumcision so that the uncircumcised Gentiles are as qualified to receive it as are the Jews. Then, secondly, that it is independent of the law or of works of the law. Abraham believed God and had faith in his promise, even in the knowledge of the barrenness of Sarah’s womb and his own advanced age. As Paul explained, No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:20-22). So it is on this basis that Paul seeks to establish Abraham as the prime example of justification by faith only, and not by works. This, however, is not the entire story. If we examine the wider contest of Genesis, we must conclude that Abraham’s blessing came through both faith and works of law, and especially through the latter. God spoke to Abraham and said, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice (Genesis 22:17, 18). No mention here of faith, only that Abraham obeyed the voice of the Lord – a work of obedience to law! Then, later, when God extended the same blessing to Isaac, it was because Abraham had . . . obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5).
So that when Paul wrote, The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:13), he chose to ignore the full explanation of the Genesis text. To cap it all off, nowhere in Genesis can I find that God promised Abraham that his descendants would inherit the world! He only promised them the Land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). The Epistle of James may have been written for the purpose, in part, of countering this “faith only” doctrine of Paul. James also appeals to Abraham, specifically to the offering of Isaac as sacrifice, and concludes, “Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness;” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. ( James 2:20-24) He advances a collection of six quotations from various contexts of the Old Testament to put this point, the universality of human sinfulness and depravity, to rest once for all.
Let us list them all for closer examination, after which I will comment on each one briefly: 1. Romans : (3:10-12) None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one (Psalm 14:1-3). 2. (3:13a) Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive (Psalm 5:9). 3. (3:13b) The venom of asps is under their lips (Psalm 140:3). 4. (3:14) Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness (Psalm 10:7). 5. (3:15-17) Their feet are swift to shed blood, in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they do not know (Isaiah 59:7, 8). 6. (3:18) There is no fear of God before their eyes (Psalm 36:1). Psalm 14:1-3 appears on first reading to say exactly what Paul wishes it to say. But if we read the balance of the psalm, it becomes evident that the psalmist did not intend what Paul asserted, for in v. 4 we have the evildoers set apart from my people with a clear distinction made between them. Then in v. 5, these evildoers will be in great terror, for God will be with the generation of the righteous, who are then identified with the poor, but the Lord is his refuge. The Psalm closes with v. 7: O, that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad. Clearly, the Psalmist allows for two categories of human beings, the evildoers and the generation of the righteous, who are identified with Israel in the last verse. The “no, not one” must then refer only to the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord, presumably Gentiles in contrast to Jacob and Israel. Paul, who seeks by this to prove his point, that all are under condemnation of sin without exception, has not properly regarded the context and has as a result drawn something out of it contrary to the intent of the Psalmist. He has tampered with God’s word. There is no denying it. Paul has here used the Word deceptively. He has tampered with it to make it appear that his position is supported thereby. Not only is this premise not supported by the passages quoted as its support, but neither is it true to the thought of the Old Testament, as Holmes Rolston would have us believe.
The thought of the Old Testament, beginning with Cain and Abel, consistently allows for two categories of human beings, the wicked and the righteous, in the manner I have demonstrated above. If Paul’s premise is true, it cannot be established by reference to the Law, the Prophets, or the Psalms. Now we know why his opponents charged him with tampering with the Word of God, and why he was compelled to issue denials in his defense. It is not surprising to see Paul applying this prophecy to the coming of the Christ (Messiah) in the work of Jesus. This is a common application, but he interprets the word for faithfulness as faith, applying it to the conviction of the truth of the redemptive work of Christ, which is not justified when its context is considered. The Septuagint similarly errs in using the Greek, pistis, to translate the Hebrew word, for this does mean faith, as Paul understood it. Since Paul was using the Septuagint, this may explain how he came to misunderstand the word in its context. And he made it the cornerstone of his gospel so it looks suspiciously like he has again been found tampering with God’s Word. This is only one more of the numerous incidents where it......
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
