Paul the heretic??

Aaron112 said:

Many posts are perverse, there's no standard of truth kept on any forum I've seen for years.
If any post is contrary to /opposed to/ Scripture, especially willingly and wittingly, it is perverse. bad. in error.

Click to expand...

But I'm not opposed to scripture.

Apple Sky said:

But I'm not opposed to scripture.

Click to expand...

Great! Keep it that way alway!

JSRG said:

Why did you bump a topic that no one has posted in for more than 8 years just to say that?

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit

Gregory Thompson said:

That's funny, accusing the guy of the "another gospel" scripture of preaching "another gospel"

good one.

Click to expand...

Around 1900 when Dispensationalism was taking off, they had 68 Gospels, all extracted from scripture, Ivan Panin refuted that and conclude that there is only on Gospel and that is the Gospel of the Kingdom, (a booklet "The Gospel and the Kingdom" which can still be found and purchased on the internet). Panin concluded, Dispensationalism requires a new Gospel, a new Kingdom and a new Bible.

What is the Gospel according to Paul? Is it to do with righteousness, is it to do with the personage of Christ, or does Paul teach the Kingdom of God?

Gregory Thompson said:

That's funny, accusing the guy of the "another gospel" scripture of preaching "another gospel"

good one.

Click to expand...

We have the benefit of being born in this time, with the completed scriptures/revelation, hence all of us are very clear that Paul was indeed correct.

It may be difficult for us but we must try to understand how was it like to be a Jewish believer during the transitional period in Acts:

1. The resurrected Christ did not tell the apostles, at any time, that they are now dead to the Law of Moses.
2. Furthermore, you probably heard that Ananias and Sapphira were slain by God for lying, which was obviously against the Law. Peter was there and he was the one who sentenced that their sins will not be forgiven.

Let me put myself in the shoes of a typical Judaizer, one of those who oppose Paul in Acts 15 and 21, and Galatians 1 and 2, to try to understand their objections to Paul.

The Jerusalem leaders are the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ. Paul has no comparable authority: any commission he exercises was derived by him from the Jerusalem leaders, and if he differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.

James was the brother of Jesus and lived with Jesus since he was a boy. The original 12 apostles were the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ when he was walking on Earth.

Thus, James was certainly correct when he was writing his book of James. He was taught by Jesus in the flesh, who said to keep the Law of Moses (Matt 5:19-20), to a young man who asked Jesus what must he do to gain eternal life, James may have overheard Jesus replying to "keep all the commandments" (Matt 19:17), and "sell all you have and give to the poor" (Matt 19:21).

Thus, we have to understand the book of James from that perspective. The book of James is like a throwback to the Sermon of the Mount.

Paul has no comparable authority. He claimed he got his gospel thru revelation from the ascended Christ in Gal 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

He further claimed that he spent 3 years in Arabia where he probably got those revelations directed from the ascended Christ himself.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The Jerusalem leaders practiced circumcision and observed the law and the customs, but Paul struck on a line of his own, omitting circumcision and other ancient observances from the message he preached, and thus he betrayed his ancestral heritage. This law-free gospel has no authority but its own; he certainly did not receive it from the apostles, who disapprove of his course of action.

Their disapproval was publicly shown on one occasion at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14), when there was a direct confrontation between Peter and him on the necessity of maintaining the Jewish food-laws.

Those are Paul's claims and no one else could verify the authenticity of his gospel. Why should I, as a Judaizer, believe him over the words of James and the original 12 apostles? As far as I know if Paul differs from them on the content or implications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily.

Now he is trying to preach that one can be saved without obeying the Law of Moses and that the Jews need not follow them. How dare he! (Acts 15 and Acts 21)

sparow said:

Around 1900 when Dispensationalism was taking off, they had 68 Gospels, all extracted from scripture, Ivan Panin refuted that and conclude that there is only on Gospel and that is the Gospel of the Kingdom, (a booklet "The Gospel and the Kingdom" which can still be found and purchased on the internet). Panin concluded, Dispensationalism requires a new Gospel, a new Kingdom and a new Bible.

What is the Gospel according to Paul? Is it to do with righteousness, is it to do with the personage of Christ, or does Paul teach the Kingdom of God?

Click to expand...

All this dissection logic is probably why the word stopped living in people's minds.

sparow said:

What is the Gospel according to Paul? Is it to do with righteousness, is it to do with the personage of Christ, or does Paul teach the Kingdom of God?

Click to expand...

I would say it's all three. Here is an example of each:

RIGHTEOUSNESS:

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,” (Ro 3:21 NKJV)

THE PERSON OF CHRIST:

“For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” (1Co 2:2 NKJV)

THE KINGDOM OF GOD:

“For the kingdom of God [is] not in word but in power.” (1Co 4:20 NKJV)

Gregory Thompson said:

All this dissection logic is probably why the word stopped living in people's minds.

Click to expand...

The Word stop living in peoples minds? God no longer shares His Spirit to us to guide us?

That is not true and should not be spoken as a Christian.

David Lamb said:

RIGHTEOUSNESS:

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,” (Ro 3:21 NKJV)

Click to expand...

Taken out of context the verse you shared would ensue more doubt with someone who has trouble understanding Paul.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is through the faith of Jesus Christ into all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Guojing said:

This law-free gospel has no authority but its own; he certainly did not receive it from the apostles, who disapprove of his course of action.

Click to expand...

A sinless Church through Christ does not need the Law. The Law is for sinners.

David Lamb said:

I would say it's all three. Here is an example of each:

RIGHTEOUSNESS:

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,” (Ro 3:21 NKJV)

THE PERSON OF CHRIST:

“For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” (1Co 2:2 NKJV)

THE KINGDOM OF GOD:

“For the kingdom of God [is] not in word but in power.” (1Co 4:20 NKJV)

Click to expand...

I am surprised, I thought I new the answer when I asked the question _ Paul's Gospel was/is a Gospel of grace.


Paul makes some incredible and intelligent statements, after all he was trained to be a Jewish Rabbi, so I wonder, did Paul teach Grace, (which seems to be first a Latin concept), or was it the Bible translators that did it.

All the other prophets OT and NT taught the great and terrible day of the Lord, and in proportion and by contrast, the Day of triumph and salvation for them with the seal of God. I believe salvation is determined by allegiance to the King, those who keep His commandments; righteousness, a measure of allegiance determines rewards and stripes.

Gregory Thompson said:

All this dissection logic is probably why the word stopped living in people's minds.

Click to expand...

Dispensationalism is an extreme example of wearing one's own garments and eating one's own food, (metaphorically a mockery of marriage, and indeed the union with Christ), and using Chris's name to hide one's repose, Fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy. Notably, many seeming Godly men got caught up in it.

Indeed. I first received a very specific definition of "dispensationalism" with Scripture reference not very long ago, and looked up that word translated in KJV as "dispensation", and was both interested and appalled. That translational error seems actually pre-Reformation, it seems to have carried over from Roman quasichristian deathmonger-theologians trying to justify mass murder when their victims refused to convert.

Also, concerning that word "grace". It has been a challenge for me for a long time, trying to swallow the common church-teachings which use that word. But when I look up that word, I find the traditional discussions almost all lacking, because "grace" is simply His favoritism, His choice to deliver unusual blessings, the same concept used as the Hebrews having been the "chosen" people. We do not know why God chose to favoir the Hebrews; we just know that He did, because He said so. Ditto us.

Much of the confusion, seems to boil down to inability of many to accept that which Christ said about it being few who are chosen. And the human patterns of this are fairly well known. There is the concept of "fairness", where it is "fair" for all human beings to be "given a chance"...as if God were "fair", as if chance were involved, as if God were a gambler who loses His sheep to a devil with enough power to take. All of which teachings, are direct enmity with much which Christ the Lord has said.

sparow said:

Dispensationalism is an extreme example of wearing one's own garments and eating one's own food, (metaphorically a mockery of marriage, and indeed the union with Christ), and using Chris's name to hide one's repose, Fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy. Notably, many seeming Godly men got caught up in it.

Click to expand...

Apologies, unable to connect the dots. Thanks for replying.

JEBofChristTheLord said:

Indeed. I first received a very specific definition of "dispensationalism" with Scripture reference not very long ago, and looked up that word translated in KJV as "dispensation", and was both interested and appalled. That translational error seems actually pre-Reformation, it seems to have carried over from Roman quasichristian deathmonger-theologians trying to justify mass murder when their victims refused to convert.

Also, concerning that word "grace". It has been a challenge for me for a long time, trying to swallow the common church-teachings which use that word. But when I look up that word, I find the traditional discussions almost all lacking, because "grace" is simply His favoritism, His choice to deliver unusual blessings, the same concept used as the Hebrews having been the "chosen" people. We do not know why God chose to favoir the Hebrews; we just know that He did, because He said so. Ditto us.

Much of the confusion, seems to boil down to inability of many to accept that which Christ said about it being few who are chosen. And the human patterns of this are fairly well known. There is the concept of "fairness", where it is "fair" for all human beings to be "given a chance"...as if God were "fair", as if chance were involved, as if God were a gambler who loses His sheep to a devil with enough power to take. All of which teachings, are direct enmity with much which Christ the Lord has said.

Click to expand...

I don't think God favours Israel, chose them yes but how strange that method was. Because it was Israel with whom the covenants of redemption is made, the brunt of judgement will be against them, following Armageddon it will be Israel who beats their swords into plow shears.

There were about seventy Dispensational Churches, I would expect each would define Dispensational differenly; but basically a dispensation is a segment of a whole, a division, a dispensation can be section of a time period; so dispenationalists divide the Bible into sections and treat each individually, this is brobably not good but the real problem is the false teaching they place in each dispensation, The Rapture comes to mind. Fundanental to Dispensationalism is the hypothetical produced by the Jesuit Priest Rybera at the council of Trent, called Futurism.