Those who denounce Paul

[Koakku]

It's pretty obvious that if Paul wasn't in the scriptures there will be a massive change in the understanding of the gospel and Christian living; so, what do you make of the people who denounce Paul? They claim that there was many errors in the passages he partaken in the bible and to the others that claim that he was a false apostle and what is your take on Paul?

To back-track. Recently I've got into a small discussion or a light-debate with someone about the law and the teachings of Paul. Basically this person has said that we are to follow the Ten Commandments and that there is no "new law" and that the "old law hasn't been done away with" as Paul and the writer of Hebrews stated against. This person has also claimed that Paul had no right to change anything written in Scriptures and then this person has also claimed that Paul was a follower of the original law. These are some notable quotes from the person: "Paul isn't my Deity. He didn't try to be either." "The problem is with translation and traditions of men. They sucked me in, too, for a long time. If you will get online and research the ways language translations and traditions of men are twisting Paul's words, you will, I believe, learn a lot."

 

[Knee V]

Peter warned us about how we read Paul. It is easy to misunderstand Paul and to twist his words, and those who do so do so to their own destruction. We have to handle Paul carefully and not make our own faulty understanding of his words to be the filter through which we see the rest of the New Testament.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's pretty obvious that if Paul wasn't in the scriptures there will be a massive change in the understanding of the gospel and Christian living so what do you make of the people who denounce Paul and claim that there was many errors in the passages he partaken in the bible and to the others that claim that he was a false apostle and was is your take on Paul?

There is a rather lenghthy discussion on that topic over on the UT board.
I would think anyone that deems Saul/Paul as a deceiver or false Apostle is outside both orthodoxy and mainstream Christianity.
They might as well just turn to OC Judaism or Islam, IMHO

http://www.christianforums.com/t7770292/
What Gospel did Paul preach?

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Paul was not a part of Jesus' earthly ministry. He appears to have missed out many important concepts that were preached by Jesus! He doesn't quote not a single verse from any of the four books of the Gospel. As a pharisee, it looks like he brought some of those OT concepts that do not completely conform with the Gospel.

.

 

[Erose]

And people think having a Church is bad. This is a perfect example of the evil of Sola Scriptura, when taken to its sad, sad conclusion.

 

[PhillipLaSpino]

Let me add the following,

Let’s begin with this! 1 Cor.1:1, “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God (the Father.)”

Acts 9:15, Jesus said to Ananias, “Go your way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.”

Paul writes, Rom.15:8, “Now I (Paul) say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision (to the Jews) for the truth of God (the Father,) to confirm the promises made unto the (O.T. Jewish) fathers (Abraham, David etc.)”

Gal.2:9, “And when James, Cephas (Peter) and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me (Paul,) they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands (they shook hands) of fellowship; that we (Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the heathen (Gentiles) and they unto the circumcision (Jews.)”

Paul’s gospel was that of faith, and not works.

Rom.4:5, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Jesus,) that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (those who believe) is counted for righteousness.”

When we speak of works, we mean those who depend, both in the past and present on being saved by their own works and not by the grace of God alone.

Rom.5:1, “Therefore being justified (declare to be just) by faith, we have peace with God (the Father) through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Rom.6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace.”

Phil LaSpino

 

[ImaginaryDay]

One of the errors (I believe) of modern Evangelicals (myself being one) is to see and read Paul with modern eyes and ears. We're told that the 'Romans Road' is the way to salvation, the 'sinners prayer' will save, and so many want to thrust Paul into a 21st century context, without seeing his instructions in the culture in which he lived. When we do that, some things can undoubtedly seem contradictory. It's the "language translations and traditions of men" the OP mentioned that paint Paul into someone that he's not. I believe we need to see him in the culture and context of his own time first, before we can try to bring him forward into ours and apply what he said.

 

[Optimax]

It's pretty obvious that if Paul wasn't in the scriptures there will be a massive change in the understanding of the gospel and Christian living so what do you make of the people who denounce Paul and claim that there was many errors in the passages he partaken in the bible and to the others that claim that he was a false apostle and what is your take on Paul?

To back-track. Recently I've got into a small discussion or a light-debate with someone about the law and the teachings of Paul. Basically this person has said that we are to follow the Ten Commandments and that there is no "new law" and that the "old law hasn't been done away with" as Paul and the writer of Hebrews stated against. This person has also claimed that Paul had no right to change anything written in Scriptures and then this person has also claimed that Paul was a follower of the original law. These are some notable quotes from the person: "Paul isn't my Deity. He didn't try to be either." "The problem is with translation and traditions of men. They sucked me in, too, for a long time. If you will get online and research the ways language translations and traditions of men are twisting Paul's words, you will, I believe, learn a lot."

Those who are against Paul are against him because his teachings are against what they want to do and/or believe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And people think having a Church is bad.
This is a perfect example of the evil of Sola Scriptura, when taken to its sad, sad conclusion.

Ya might have point there.


.

 

[Whyte]

1 Thessalonians 5:3 When they say, "Peace and security," then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains come on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

 

[Erose]

Ya might have point there.


.

Considering that the table of contents is NOT Scripture, then it makes sense if you are a Scripture Only person in the extreme that you would begin challenging what is and is not Scripture.

 

[HisSparkPlug]

Since I think we can all trust that the original apostles were acting on Christ's behalf, then we must trust that Paul was also. If he were a false apostle, then why would the others support him as indicated in the scripture below..? If they were supporting a fake, then these apostles would also be called into question.. which means pretty much the entire NT could be termed bogus..

Acts 15:24-27
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Considering that the table of contents is NOT Scripture, then it makes sense if you are a Scripture Only person in the extreme that you would begin challenging what is and is not Scripture.

What makes you think I haven't been doing that here on GT?



.

 

[seeingeyes]

I think Paul is seriously misunderstood, particularly by his most ardent supporters. He should be read with his own self-description in mind:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." (1 Cor 9)

I can't wait to have a chat with this guy.

 

[Harry3142]

Koakku-

The Ten Commandments, as well as the other 603 laws found in Torah, were never intended as a 'roadmap to heaven'. Instead, their sole purpose was as a foundation on which a society could build. But there it ended. Even the reward for obeying the laws of Torah, including The Ten Commandments, was a purely pragmatic, here-and-now reward:

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land - your grain, new wine and oil - the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. (Deuteronomy 7:12-15,NIV)

That's it; there's the reward for keeping the laws of Torah. The people obeyed the laws in this life; they were rewarded in this life. But King Solomon himself summed up their attitude regarding whether there even was an afterlife:

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him? (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22,NIV)

To the Hebrews death was a wall, not a doorway. A person was born, he grew up, he had a family, and then he died, thereby ceasing to exist except in the memories of those who had known him. Many Jews even today have this same attitude toward death.

So how did laws which were purely societal at the time that the Old Testament was written become laws that could decide whether we attained eternal life at the time of Jesus' sojourn among us? By themselves they didn't. The Sadducees still held to the belief that death was a wall which no one would get past. However, the Pharisees, who accepted that there was an afterlife to be attained, took the original laws and then added thousands of laws to them. These laws were attached to the laws of the Old Testament via subsets, and in order to keep each law in a manner that ensured eternal life, every one of the laws in those subsets had to be obeyed precisely. The Sabbath commandment alone had well over 1,000 laws in a subset attached to it, and it was these laws that the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating when he healed on the Sabbath. In all, the laws necessary for attaining eternal life ran well into the 10's of 1,000's.

Today those sects which attack St. Paul and his epistles are doing exactly what the Pharisees did. They claim that we must obey the laws of Torah to merit salvation, but they fail to mention that they themselves have attached laws to them via their own subsets. So in order to obey the laws of Torah, including The Ten Commandments, in a manner that will earn us salvation, we need to obey every law that is in every subset attached to every one of those original laws.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Today those sects which attack St. Paul and his epistles are doing exactly what the Pharisees did. They claim that we must obey the laws of Torah to merit salvation, but they fail to mention that they themselves have attached laws to them via their own subsets. So in order to obey the laws of Torah, including The Ten Commandments, in a manner that will earn us salvation, we need to obey every law that is in every subset attached to every one of those original laws.

I haven't read anyone saying this. Could you give a few links to posts that support your point?

 

[Metal Minister]

And people think having a Church is bad. This is a perfect example of the evil of Sola Scriptura, when taken to its sad, sad conclusion.

Hard to see what you're talking about here, as those who deem Paul and his writings as not being scripture, are not following sola scriptura. Peter affirms that Paul and his works are scripture. Please don't place the beliefs of an incredibly small portion of unorthodox folks onto those of us who believe sola scriptura, and know better. Now, as this line is off topic I'll step away from it. (Don't want to derail the thread.)

*addendum*
One of the main tenets of sola scriptura is the use of logic. Claiming Paul and his writings are heretical, or not scripture is illogical. Just as the idea of the table of contents being scripture is also illogical. Believing that what is in the scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, does not mean we place our brain on a shelf. It means we reason out of the Word, as Paul did in Acts 17:2

 

[yogosans14]

And people think having a Church is bad. This is a perfect example of the evil of Sola Scriptura, when taken to its sad, sad conclusion.

This has nothing to do with sola scriptura, your just trying to some how justify your Churches unbiblical doctrines

 

[Hentenza]

And people think having a Church is bad. This is a perfect example of the evil of Sola Scriptura, when taken to its sad, sad conclusion.

Maybe one day you might come to understand what Sola scriptura really is.

 

[Fascinated With God]

What I can't understand are Christians who claim to respect Paul, but claim that he was a sociopath. Sociopath can excel in certain professions that reward lack of empathy, such as doctors, lawyers and businessmen, but a sociopath as a saint? That makes absolutely no sense in light of the fact that true sociopaths are incapable of love. So to call Paul a sociopath is to completely undermine his credibility as a saint. It is a self-sabotaging faith that I suspect might be a cover for sociopathic tendencies on the part of those who can swallow such a belief.

 

[Erose]

Hard to see what you're talking about here, as those who deem Paul and his writings as not being scripture, are not following sola scriptura. Peter affirms that Paul and his works are scripture. Please don't place the beliefs of an incredibly small portion of unorthodox folks onto those of us who believe sola scriptura, and know better. Now, as this line is off topic I'll step away from it. (Don't want to derail the thread.)

*addendum*
One of the main tenets of sola scriptura is the use of logic. Claiming Paul and his writings are heretical, or not scripture is illogical. Just as the idea of the table of contents being scripture is also illogical. Believing that what is in the scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, does not mean we place our brain on a shelf. It means we reason out of the Word, as Paul did in Acts 17:2

The problem with your point here, is that just like the other "common doctrines" of Protestantism, one finds differing shades of gray, in interpretation. Sola Scriptura is not excluded from this, any more than the other Solas are.

Maybe this would be an interesting thread in itself. When I have more time I believe I will start such a one.