St. Paul did NOT Write for Us!

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,522
55,220
Woods
✟4,586,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When arguments about salvation arise between Catholics and Protestants, the Bibles are usually opened to Galatians and Romans. Are we saved by faith alone or are works involved? Protestants quickly accuse Catholics of teaching a salvation based on works and Catholics quickly point out that Protestants have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction by refusing to accept human cooperation and obedience as necessary to the process.

As final proof of their point, Protestants will quote Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” That should end the argument right? Salvation is not by good works or obedience, but by faith alone?

So, the combatants rush to the books of Galatians and Romans to solve this Catholic-Protestant disagreement. But there is a huge problem here. Paul did not write these letters to us and he knew nothing of the Catholic-Protestant debate. The huge problem we have is the problem of anachronism.

Do you know what the word “anachronism” means? According to the Collins English Dictionary it comes from a Greek word for “mistake in chronology” or “error in time reference”. Anachronistic is defined as “1. the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed; 2. a person or thing that belongs or seems to belong to another time.”

The problem is that when Paul wrote these two letters he was not writing them to us today. He was writing to the Gentiles and Jews of the first century. He didn’t know about the Catholic–Protestant debate. He was not writing to Germans like Martin Luther or Americans like us.

Paul was writing to people two thousand years ago living in places like Iconium, Pamphylia, Lystra, Galatia and Rome. They were not having a raging Protestant–Catholic debate. These good folks were having a Jewish–Gentile debate which was a whole world away. To read our current situation back into Asia Minor, Palestine, and Europe of the first century is a classic case of anachronism.

Paul preached that uncircumcised gentiles could be saved without circumcision and a slavish obedience to the 613 laws of Moses–along with all the ceremonial rituals. Some Jewish believers, on the other hand said, “Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and if you want to become a Christian you must become a Jew first.”

Continued below.
 

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
432
114
68
Southwest
✟36,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
When arguments about salvation arise between Catholics and Protestants, the Bibles are usually opened to Galatians and Romans. Are we saved by faith alone or are works involved? Protestants quickly accuse Catholics of teaching a salvation based on works and Catholics quickly point out that Protestants have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction by refusing to accept human cooperation and obedience as necessary to the process.

As final proof of their point, Protestants will quote Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” That should end the argument right? Salvation is not by good works or obedience, but by faith alone?

So, the combatants rush to the books of Galatians and Romans to solve this Catholic-Protestant disagreement. But there is a huge problem here. Paul did not write these letters to us and he knew nothing of the Catholic-Protestant debate. The huge problem we have is the problem of anachronism.

Do you know what the word “anachronism” means? According to the Collins English Dictionary it comes from a Greek word for “mistake in chronology” or “error in time reference”. Anachronistic is defined as “1. the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed; 2. a person or thing that belongs or seems to belong to another time.”

The problem is that when Paul wrote these two letters he was not writing them to us today. He was writing to the Gentiles and Jews of the first century. He didn’t know about the Catholic–Protestant debate. He was not writing to Germans like Martin Luther or Americans like us.

Paul was writing to people two thousand years ago living in places like Iconium, Pamphylia, Lystra, Galatia and Rome. They were not having a raging Protestant–Catholic debate. These good folks were having a Jewish–Gentile debate which was a whole world away. To read our current situation back into Asia Minor, Palestine, and Europe of the first century is a classic case of anachronism.

Paul preached that uncircumcised gentiles could be saved without circumcision and a slavish obedience to the 613 laws of Moses–along with all the ceremonial rituals. Some Jewish believers, on the other hand said, “Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and if you want to become a Christian you must become a Jew first.”

Continued below.
And so, your point is what???

All the inspired biblical writers, were writing to SOMEONE.
That does not necessarily mean that what they wrote, does not apply to anyone but the specific target of their letters.

To argue that the Scriptures do not apply to all of god's People, you must defend arguments such as;

-- There are no global truths
-- There are no truths, that remain true, through time
-- God's purpose was not to create a People, that endured through space and time.
-- God did not mean this People to have a common moral/ethical (ME) system
-- When god inspired the biblical authors, he was not intelligent enough to make the material relevant to anyone but the immediate audience of the inspired material
...

To try to demonstrate your assertion, you have to commit to all sorts of positions that are not Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,522
55,220
Woods
✟4,586,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you know what the word “anachronism” means? According to the Collins English Dictionary it comes from a Greek word for “mistake in chronology” or “error in time reference”. Anachronistic is defined as “1. the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed; 2. a person or thing that belongs or seems to belong to another time.”

The problem is that when Paul wrote these two letters he was not writing them to us today. He was writing to the Gentiles and Jews of the first century. He didn’t know about the Catholic–Protestant debate. He was not writing to Germans like Martin Luther or Americans like us.

Paul was writing to people two thousand years ago living in places like Iconium, Pamphylia, Lystra, Galatia and Rome. They were not having a raging Protestant–Catholic debate. These good folks were having a Jewish–Gentile debate which was a whole world away. To read our current situation back into Asia Minor, Palestine, and Europe of the first century is a classic case of anachronism.

Paul preached that uncircumcised gentiles could be saved without circumcision and a slavish obedience to the 613 laws of Moses–along with all the ceremonial rituals. Some Jewish believers, on the other hand said, “Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and if you want to become a Christian you must become a Jew first.”

They couldn’t have said it any clearer than in Acts 15:1: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” They want to impose the “works of the Law” referred to above in Romans 3:28 upon the gentiles. It had nothing whatever to do with Catholics and good works. It has to with Gentiles coming into the Body of Christ by faith and obedience, not by becoming circumcised Jews.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, was the prime example or case in point. Was he saved by circumcision and by obeying all the laws of Moses? Heavens no! He was saved while an uncircumcised pagan gentile living in Ur of the Chaldees, a thousand miles to east of Israel.

Circumcision was only given as a sign of the covenant, not the means of salvation. And he did not obey the 613 laws of Moses since they would not even exist for another six hundred years or so. Abraham was saved by the grace of God and his belief and obedience and not by “the works of the Law” (See Romans 4 and James 2).

This is exactly what Catholics teach! We are not anachronistic. We understand Galatians and Romans within their proper chronology. Paul wrote to that particular age and culture with its particular problems. We live in a different age and culture with different particular problems.

But, even though Paul didn’t specifically write his letters to us, if we study the cultural climate in which they were written, and stay faithful to the tradition in which they were passed on to us, the Holy Spirit (the primary author of the letters) will help us apply the principles and truth of those letters to our current situation.

By the way, can you imagine how difficult evangelism would have been in the first century if every male who believed in Christ had to be circumcised? They would have asked Paul “You want us to cut off what?”


 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,786.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Paul preached that uncircumcised gentiles could be saved without circumcision and a slavish obedience to the 613 laws of Moses–along with all the ceremonial rituals.
It was these kinds of works St Paul was suggesting were not necessary.

Indeed true.

BUT works done in faith for the good of the BODY of Christ [His Bride], necessary.

Context is the problem with todays exegesis.

I Agree
 
Upvote 0

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
432
114
68
Southwest
✟36,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Do you know what the word “anachronism” means? According to the Collins English Dictionary it comes from a Greek word for “mistake in chronology” or “error in time reference”. Anachronistic is defined as “1. the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed; 2. a person or thing that belongs or seems to belong to another time.”

The problem is that when Paul wrote these two letters he was not writing them to us today. He was writing to the Gentiles and Jews of the first century. He didn’t know about the Catholic–Protestant debate. He was not writing to Germans like Martin Luther or Americans like us.

Paul was writing to people two thousand years ago living in places like Iconium, Pamphylia, Lystra, Galatia and Rome. They were not having a raging Protestant–Catholic debate. These good folks were having a Jewish–Gentile debate which was a whole world away. To read our current situation back into Asia Minor, Palestine, and Europe of the first century is a classic case of anachronism.

Paul preached that uncircumcised gentiles could be saved without circumcision and a slavish obedience to the 613 laws of Moses–along with all the ceremonial rituals. Some Jewish believers, on the other hand said, “Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and if you want to become a Christian you must become a Jew first.”

They couldn’t have said it any clearer than in Acts 15:1: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” They want to impose the “works of the Law” referred to above in Romans 3:28 upon the gentiles. It had nothing whatever to do with Catholics and good works. It has to with Gentiles coming into the Body of Christ by faith and obedience, not by becoming circumcised Jews.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, was the prime example or case in point. Was he saved by circumcision and by obeying all the laws of Moses? Heavens no! He was saved while an uncircumcised pagan gentile living in Ur of the Chaldees, a thousand miles to east of Israel.

Circumcision was only given as a sign of the covenant, not the means of salvation. And he did not obey the 613 laws of Moses since they would not even exist for another six hundred years or so. Abraham was saved by the grace of God and his belief and obedience and not by “the works of the Law” (See Romans 4 and James 2).

This is exactly what Catholics teach! We are not anachronistic. We understand Galatians and Romans within their proper chronology. Paul wrote to that particular age and culture with its particular problems. We live in a different age and culture with different particular problems.

But, even though Paul didn’t specifically write his letters to us, if we study the cultural climate in which they were written, and stay faithful to the tradition in which they were passed on to us, the Holy Spirit (the primary author of the letters) will help us apply the principles and truth of those letters to our current situation.

By the way, can you imagine how difficult evangelism would have been in the first century if every male who believed in Christ had to be circumcised? They would have asked Paul “You want us to cut off what?”


I disagree with your basic premise, that Paul was not writing to the Church (through time).

Paul, was designated an Apostle by Jesus. The Apostles were recognized as having all authority to teach.

Although Paul addresses some issues that were contentious in the first century, what he wrote, especially his theology, applies to the entire Church, through time.

The assertion that Paul did not write with Apostolic authority, or did not address topics common to the entire Church, is not an orthodox Christian doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,786.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
St Paul wrote for all time, but what became lost in time was context.

For the immediate problem [which differs than what those outside the Church today understand it] St Paul was referring to the 'works' of simply cleaning the body and material items [all of which ends] as works.

The problem is context. Context. Context.
IF people today [and they do not] don't understand the Old Testament and culture of the Jews, they will be lost on this.
And they are of course.

TO rely solely on these few aforementioned verses loses sight of the CONTEXT in which Jesus said 'You did not feed Me when I was hungry.' 'You did not give me drink when I was thirsty.' 'You did not clothe Me when I was naked.'


It is so simple to see that we are required to do works in loving others [extending love] vs worrying about clean hands, pots and pans... etc which are self involved and have nothing to do with love and the soul cleaning of doing loving things for others we thus do it for the LORD Who loves all.


So when context is lost, all their understanding goes with it.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,400
786
Midwest
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I disagree with your basic premise, that Paul was not writing to the Church (through time).

Paul, was designated an Apostle by Jesus. The Apostles were recognized as having all authority to teach.

Although Paul addresses some issues that were contentious in the first century, what he wrote, especially his theology, applies to the entire Church, through time.

The assertion that Paul did not write with Apostolic authority, or did not address topics common to the entire Church, is not an orthodox Christian doctrine.
I think the basic idea the article is trying to assert has merit, but it isn't doing a good job explaining it and comes across as what you're talking about.

I remember Hank Hanegraff said something along the lines of "the epistles were written for you, but not to you" (not sure if this was before or after his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy). His point, as I recall (I admit this was years ago I heard this) was that while the letters of course have importance for doctrine for subsequent Christians, one must remember the specific time and context they were written in and the audience they were written for. Can you get usage out of them? Of course! But you still weren't who it was specifically written to and that must be remembered.

That indeed seems to be the basic argument the article is making, but this useful to/from distinction is much less clear, particularly because of the fact it literally says in the title that they were not written for you. Had it taken the same tact Hanegraff did, I think it would have been more clear, but its phrasing makes it less clear.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,786.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Spirit is outside of time.
Eternity is endless. The Lord has no beginning and no end.
Though everything was slooooooooowed down incredibly and 2000 years seems like ancient times, the Lord on the cross knew each of us.
He loved us all and not one dot would be changed. Not one tittle.

It has as much meaning now as then, but that being said; context.
Context and culture are the basic ingredients.
Trying to comprehend it in our culture and without FULL context of the original questions for the answers written down and without knowledgeable teachers of historic understanding makes it otherwise impossible to comprehend it fully in todays world.
But those answers indeed that help us even now.

Yet we shouldn't try to 'understand' them on our own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joined2krist
Upvote 0