Why is there hatred of St. Paul?

[Albion]

Aren't such people usually "Red Letter" believers (they make their theology based primarily on Jesus statements rather than doing what most Christians do assume that Paul and the other apostles clarify issues not raised in the Gospels or other problems implementing Jesus teaching etc.).

Such people probably are included, but I know that some are not in that category. Again, who can say what the percentages are?

 

[Albion]

Why don't you test that theory?

Here's how I would test it, myself. I'd ask a lot of questions, and try to find out what their terms mean.

Are the using the word 'salvation' to mean precisely what I mean when I use the term?

That would be one central question (of perhaps half a dozen) to answer early.

Then, take a key but representative sentence, and being sure to have all the context sentences they used with it, and then ask more questions, or do active listening style paraphrasing of the sentence (to what you yourself honestly think they implied and were saying and believe) and then ask:

"Did I paraphrase that correctly?"

And find out.

I know that the wording used with this can be tricky and that small differences can mean much. However, there is not the slightest doubt that most who claim that we are saved by faith AND works, as opposed to faith which produces works, mean it exactly as the Catholic church and others have taught it to them.

 

[Halbhh]

most Christians do assume that Paul and the other apostles clarify issues not raised in the Gospels

Good point to repeat the generally-agreed to understanding that Paul, Peter, James, and John are elaborating and expounding on things Christ said and touched on.

And if you asked most people in churches whether that is what the epistles do, many/most (more than 1/2) would look at you in surprise for a second, eyes-widened, and then slowly say something like: "..oh..yeah, that's right."

And nod their heads, often.

But in reality, it'd be the first time they ever considered it that way (for many). They usually have a more...holistic/uncritical way of just kinda assuming that without even realizing it, a sort of unconscious understanding. They agree, but never thought about it.

But if you used a much simpler wording, like: "Do the epistles agree with the gospels?" then I think most would say "yes" quickly (I certainly hope they would!). I know they would in my local church as we read a gospel passage and an epistles passage on most every sunday, and if you look around you can tell people are listening, absorbing the words. After about 500 instances of that (most members have been in this church more than 10 years), it creates a kind of impression, even when the person has not articulated it abstractly.

 

[Guojing]

Aren't such people usually "Red Letter" believers (they make their theology based primarily on Jesus statements rather than doing what most Christians do assume that Paul and the other apostles clarify issues not raised in the Gospels or other problems implementing Jesus teaching etc.).

Good point, personally, I would regard Francis Chan as a very good example of a "Red letter" believer. He really preaches a lot from the 4 Gospels.

He will always mention, "What would Jesus have done?"

 

[Halbhh]

I know that the wording used with this can be tricky and that small differences can mean much. However, there is not the slightest doubt that most who claim that we are saved by faith AND works, as opposed to faith which produces works, mean it exactly as the Catholic church and others have taught it to them.

Ah!

Ask your Catholic friend if "we are saved by faith AND works, as opposed to faith which produces works?", and then listen to their answer, and then use active listening, and begin to find out what their terms actually mean.

Be aware of the crucial, central, essential term "grace", and find out as best you possibly can precisely what the Catholic friend means by the term, as exactly and exhaustively as you are able to, I suggest.

It's useful to know that Catholics in english actually use some key words in different ways than most American Christians do, even central key terms like 'faith', 'charity', 'justice' (to my considerable surprise when I realized it).

 

[Albion]

Ah!

Ask your Catholic friend if "we are saved by faith AND works, as opposed to faith which produces works?", and then listen to their answer, and then use active listening, and begin to find out what their terms actually mean.

Been there; done that. The works are always said to be efficacious or words to that effect.

 

[Halbhh]

Been there; done that. The works are always said to be efficatious or words to that effect.

Be sure to find out their very precise meaning of the crucial, central, essential term "grace". Make the effort.

Review it then, and try to be sure you've got exactly and exhaustively as you are able to what 'grace' means exactly and in aspects, I suggest.

If the individual starts relying on some word like 'efficacious' then ask about that word, in detail, and how it works, precisely.

It's useful to know that Catholics in english actually use some key words in different ways than most American Christians do, even central key terms like 'faith', 'charity', 'justice' (to my considerable surprise when I realized it).

I have read the Catholic Catechism on Grace and Justification, but also have a Catholic friend I've discussed a variety of things with for altogether many hours. I think I will just for extra, ask him just this question, even though I know what the Catholic Catechism says already.

 

[Albion]

You're losing me with these repeated suggestions about quizzing people.

What is it that you are trying to say here about faith and works as taught by those who believe in the efficacy and necessity of both?

 

[~Zao~]

Belonging to a physical church does not make you a true believer. We must not pretend Paul's objective was only grace and unity. That is simply not true, this is not the only thing he taught or stressed and we must keep Paul's teachings in context of the scriptures. Paul & others were seeding groups of believers & he was travelling amongst them, he needed to remind them of what united them- the grace of God by the washing away of their sins by the blood of Jesus & remind them what they had been taught.

Grace thru unity was what Paul taught. Greek/Jew & male/female & bond/free. They were united like an ingrafted tree from the same root, stemming from the different branches but producing only one fruit and that was the Spirit, realized in truth.
His method was to show forth the shadow in order to see the substance ~ one the aroma, the other the essence. The aroma was only of Christ, as was the church in relation to the essence of the Godhead.
The outer Gentile court (where the woman’s court and the treasury were located ) (that which Christ cleansed) has been cleansed, and is now located at the throne of grace (outside the camp of those who serve within)
The more intimate inner sanctuary belongs to Him that is Lord of the Sabbath. While the Holiest Place contains all that is needed for daily bread, (heavenly manna) the Life (seen in the budded branch) and the Spirit of the law. Those are found in the heavenly view of the substance, not within the shadow.
Reminding them to guard their hearts as well as the trust was good advise. Adopting laws of the nations was not. It brought the Jews to safety once thru Esther. They say there is still a gallow there but that’s also the place where the cross was introduced.

 

[Halbhh]

Been there; done that. The works are always said to be efficacious or words to that effect.

Additionally, if you really care about the person, or the discussion topic, this would be very good to know about, to read over, and be aware they use some terms differently than us:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Grace and justification

 

[Halbhh]

You're losing me with these repeated suggestions about quizzing people.

What is it that you are trying to say here about faith and works as taught by those who believe in the efficacy and necessity of both?

I have not personally been in a discussion, though I've been in a lot on grace and works, that relied on the term efficacy very centrally, an old word I am only accustomed to the normal standard meaning for. If someone because to crucially rely on it, then I'd want to know precisely what it means to them (to the individual person using it).

 

[~Zao~]

I have not personally been in a discussion, though I've been in a lot on grace and works, that relied on the term efficacy very centrally, an old word I am only accustomed to the normal standard meaning for. If someone because to crucially rely on it, then I'd want to know precisely what it means to them (to the individual person using it).

The efficiency of Christ is in the completed work. As in ‘it is finished'

 

[Halbhh]

The efficiency of Christ is in the completed work. As in ‘it is finished'

Yes. I do think it's mysterious to many people what a person means by saying that though. Even though you know what you mean, they may not, so that sentence world not be enough to communicate your meaning to them. They'd be left guessing at what you might mean. So while I know the intended meaning, someone else may have to guess at the intended meaning. Or ask you. But they may ask poorly also. All sorts of miscommunication is possible, unless we are in a good place at the moment and answer in love, without impatience, etc.

 

[~Zao~]

Yes. I do think it's mysterious to many people what a person means by saying that though. Even though you know what you mean, they may not, so that sentence world not be enough to communicate your meaning to them. They'd be left guessing at what you might mean. So while I know the intended meaning, someone else may have to guess at the intended meaning. Or ask you. But they may ask poorly also. All sorts of miscommunication is possible, unless we are in a good place at the moment and answer in love, without impatience, etc.

The Risen Lord (in His all sufficiency) has completed all that salvation entails, nothing more is needed. Peter emphasized that what was not completed was the suffering, perhaps because that is/was what remained unrecognized.

 

[Halbhh]

Peter emphasized that what was not completed was the suffering, perhaps because that is/was what remained unrecognized.

Interesting. That sounds Catholic to me, though I'm only guessing at what you are referring to -- Catholics at times have saints that seem like they are saying something like (?) they wish to offer themselves to suffer as if to help aid in the work of recompense for the wrongs in the world, or so it seems on my brief reading. (probably some Catholic or explanation somewhere could help explain this far better than my guess here)

 

[~Zao~]

Interesting. That sounds Catholic to me, though I'm only guessing at what you are referring to -- Catholics at times have saints that seem like they are saying something like (?) they wish to offer themselves to suffer as if to help aid in the work of recompense for the wrongs in the world, or so it seems on my brief reading. (probably some Catholic or explanation somewhere could help explain this far better than my guess here)

The suffering servant was not recognized by the Jews and was the reason they didn’t believe that the carpenter was also the Messiah. They believed that He came to conquer and make them great again. They failed to realize the kingdom because they couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Just as the OT prophets didn’t see the valley of the church age in view of eternity. The Jubilee was 2 stages. They didn’t recognize the future event by overlooking the former.

 

[Pepper77]

It has been present since old times since he had to defend his apostleship and keeps coming not only from Jews, Muslims, and atheists but even from people who called themselves Christians. I don't think any of the Apostles is as controversial as him.

It started probably because of his persecution of Christians before the Lord appeared to him and started his ministry. Many, I suppose were distrustful of him, whether he really had changed. Funny how God does things. It really continued with the Judaizers, those who were having a hard time letting go of the Old law-based Covenant, and trusting fully in the grace of God and the New Covenant totally based on Christ's finished work. I would say that problem continues today. Often, churches do not teach enough of the differences between the old and new covenant. They mix the two all the time as well, instead of teaching understanding of the old covenant's purpose and even how Jesus used it, since he was born under it, taught under it and used it to show people their need for a new way to be righteous.....trusting in Him as their righteousness.

 

[Pepper77]

Actually Jesus raised the standard even higher, by telling us that people who only follow the rules by external actions aren't doing enough-and are hypocritical. We must be clean on the inside first He tells us, then the outside follows suit, obeying for the right reasons. And the only way to become clean on the inside is to turn to God in humility, and He does the cleansing, the forgiving, the making new creations of us. Only with the help of grace can we become people who love as we should, and then love fulfills the law and excludes sin and does good for others by its nature. Paul also knew that love was the central aspect of man's righteousness and of the Christian faith; read 1 Cor 13, for one. Also Rom 13:8-10.

A major link between Paul and Jesus is that one must believe in the Father and the Son and their promises to us, and Jesus came to reveal God to an extent that He'd never been revealed before, a God we could truly believe in, who was fully worthy of our faith. And so we must know Him in order to believe, so we can then place our hope and trust in Him and ultimately love Him. This is the object of faith.
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

Faith is the doorway to righteousness (it justifies us) because faith is the doorway to God who is our righteousness, and who, alone, can make us just or righteous. Jesus didn't come to abolish either obedience or the Law (He even tells us so in Matt 5:17), rather He came to show and bring us to a place where we'll obey for the right reason. A quote from Basil of Cesarea, a 4th century bishop, is related to this:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

Exactly! Great post. He makes us obedient from the heart through faith. Obedient to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the new covenant law, that Christ actually fulfills in us as the source, we being joined to Him in the spirit. Paul was given through revelation from Christ the truths of the new man, the new creation by faith.

 

[Athanasius377]

Lol it’s up to 40,000?

That's a 7000 increase since last spring! I wonder if its tied to the rise in the S&P 500?

In all seriousness, the topic of St. Paul being an apostle comes up like clockwork every 6 months. Furthermore it seems to be the same handful of people on CF who restart the argument after being told to cool it. Kind of like the universalists that are around here. In fact its been a while since I've heard from those guys.