Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

[RDKirk]

Yet perhaps one 'specific' - concerning "following" teachers and elders..... this was the way the "many anti-christs in our midst" were able to mislead the congregations within a few centuries of the first century.

So then you, too, are disregarding Paul.

Okay. Noted.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Noted you now bear false witness with a completely false and wrong-hearted assumption.
(As noted several times in my own posts: Yahshua always spoke as Yahweh gave Him Words to speak, and Yahshua trained and taught the Apostle Paul directly,
and Yahweh and Yahshua and the Apostles including Paul are all in perfect harmony with one another as Yahweh and Yahshua Planned all along (even also including how various things were handled to settle any differences) .....)

So then you, too, are disregarding Paul.

Okay. Noted.

 

[zoidar]

We shouldn't elevate Jesus' words over Paul's or Paul's words over Jesus. Neither spoke on there own.
We need to compare Scripture withScripture to uncover the truth.

That's kind of like saying a private soldier can take the Congress' document of declaration of war and then carry out combat all by himself without an intervening authority outlining his particular role in the fight.

In general, Jesus did not give specific instruction on how His Body should operate. He left that to His apostles and to following teachers and elders.

Although Jesus confirmed that His commandments were in accord with the "weightier" matters of scripture, Jesus rarely explained how. Paul did. Jesus certainly said to the sinner, "Your faith has saved you," that left the Jews scratching their heads about how that could be, Paul explained how.

To cut to the chase, Paul taught exactly like Jesus, that salvation is faith plus obedience. Not as it has been understood by reformers as faith alone. This is the common misunderstanding from the wrong approach to the Bible.

I think you are making the wrong conclusions RDKirk, Jesus said "how", but many close their eyes to what Jesus said, because Jesus demands something from us, and people don't like that.

 

[JoeP222w]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Could Christianity survive without his teachings?

I am starting to wonder if we should hold onto the words of Jesus in the NT more than those of Paul. It seems to me that Paul has taken over the NT. Rightly or wrongly so?

This is working on a fundamental false assumption that Paul taught something different that Jesus. This is incorrect. Paul did not change the gospel of Jesus Christ one bit. The letters of Paul that are in the scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit, so are you saying that God contradicts Himself? I am not saying that Paul is God.

Moreover, Christianity was not created by Paul, nor was it sustained by Paul, nor is it preserved because of Paul (in and of himself). Christianity survives because of God and Him alone.

If you reject the words of Paul in the Bible, you are rejecting the inerrancy of scripture and there is great danger in that course.

 

[JoeP222w]

Especially the Protestant tradition which leans so heavily on Paul's writings.

The irony in this is astounding considering the many Roman Catholic churches that are named "St. Paul's"

In fact I don't even think it's controversial to say that the Reformation would have never happened without Paul.

Yes, when you study the Bible, including Paul, you see the many false teachings of Rome.

 

[zoidar]

This is working on a fundamental false assumption that Paul taught something different that Jesus. This is incorrect. Paul did not change the gospel of Jesus Christ one bit. The letters of Paul that are in the scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit, so are you saying that God contradicts Himself? I am not saying that Paul is God.

Moreover, Christianity was not created by Paul, nor was it sustained by Paul, nor is it preserved because of Paul (in and of himself). Christianity survives because of God and Him alone.

If you reject the words of Paul in the Bible, you are rejecting the inerrancy of scripture and there is great danger in that course.

The whole Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The problem is not the Bible, but the doctrines of man.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Could Christianity survive without his teachings?

I am starting to wonder if we should hold onto the words of Jesus in the NT more than those of Paul. It seems to me that Paul has taken over the NT. Rightly or wrongly so?

Christianity would be exactly as God intended regardless of any of the apostles.

 

[JoeP222w]

The whole Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The problem is not the Bible, but the doctrines of man.

I agree completely. And it was not my intent to say otherwise.

 

[RDKirk]

To cut to the chase, Paul taught exactly like Jesus, that salvation is faith plus obedience. Not as it has been understood by reformers as faith alone. This is the common misunderstanding from the wrong approach to the Bible.

I think you are making the wrong conclusions RDKirk, Jesus said "how", but many close their eyes to what Jesus said, because Jesus demands something from us, and people don't like that.

You are saying, then, that the Pauline letters--in fact, all of the gospel that is not in "red letters" may not be heretical but are yet unnecessary for the Body of Christ.

 

[zoidar]

You are saying, then, that the Pauline letters--in fact, all of the gospel that is not in "red letters" may not be heretical but are yet unnecessary for the Body of Christ.

No, I don't say such a thing, not at all. We got great use of all the letters of the Bible. What I say is that they should be read in the light of Jesus' teachings.

 

[RDKirk]

No, I don't say such a thing, not at all. We got great use of all the letters of the Bible. What I say is that they should be read in the light of Jesus' teachings.

The Christians of the first three centuries included them in the canon in the light of Jesus' teachings. We don't need to excise any particular wariness that something in the Pauline letters might be in opposition to Jesus' teachings because our forefathers have already taken care of that, themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit to do that.

Remember there are "gospels" with "Jesus' teachings" that those early Christians did not include in the canon.

All of it should be read in the light of the Holy Spirit, because we don't know what "Jesus' teachings" even are except for the same people who determined which of Paul's letters to include along with the gospels.

 

[zoidar]

The Christians of the first three centuries included them in the canon in the light of Jesus' teachings. We don't need to excise any particular wariness that something in the Pauline letters might be in opposition to Jesus' teachings because our forefathers have already taken care of that, themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit to do that.

Remember there are "gospels" with "Jesus' teachings" that those early Christians did not include in the canon.

All of it should be read in the light of the Holy Spirit, because we don't know what "Jesus' teachings" even are except for the same people who determined which of Paul's letters to include along with the gospels.

The early Christians of the first three centuries had a different understanding of Paul's letters, than the reformers. We should listen to the first Christians a lot more.

I agree that we are to read the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. But the problem is that two people who read it "in the light of the Holy Spirit" can get to two opposite conclusions ... People often say it to prove they are right. Who can argue against something being "read through the Holy Spirit" ? So I don't use it to prove I'm right, I prefer going to the early Christians.

 

[Doug Melven]

The early Christians of the first three centuries had a different understanding of Paul's letters, than the reformers. We should listen to the first Christians a lot more.

I agree that we are to read the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. But the problem is that two people who read it "in the light of the Holy Spirit" can get to two opposite conclusions ... People often say it to prove they are right. Who can argue against something being "read through the Holy Spirit" ? So I don't use it to prove I'm right, I prefer going to the early Christians.

There is a difference between somebody saying "read through the Holy Spirit" and actually reading the Scriptures with His guidance.
Just because somebody tells you they received something from the Holy Spirit does not make it so,

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Just because somebody tells you they received something from the Holy Spirit does not make it so,

All through history that is how false teachers and false prophets gained popularity and control over so many multitudes or many small groups.

 

[hedrick]

To cut to the chase, Paul taught exactly like Jesus, that salvation is faith plus obedience. Not as it has been understood by reformers as faith alone. This is the common misunderstanding from the wrong approach to the Bible.

I think you are making the wrong conclusions RDKirk, Jesus said "how", but many close their eyes to what Jesus said, because Jesus demands something from us, and people don't like that.

Some Lutherans understand Paul to say that we are justified entirely through faith, but once he's done that, we're responsible for how we respond. That's how I understand this response from the LCMS: https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#lose.

Calvinists don't, but predestination complicates assessing the Calvinist position on loss of salvation.

For this reason I generally object to "salvation by faith alone." Paul taught "justification by faith alone." When he speaks of justification by faith it's clear he was excluding works.

Many NT scholars will say that we are justified by faith and judged according to works. When you take 1 Cor into account, Paul seems to say that. I believe Jesus does as well. The position I attribute to Lutherans, however, is not the only way to deal with this. While justified by faith and judged according to works is widely accepted, there are a number of understandings of how it works. This article attempts to show the major categories: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-2/JETS 52-2 323-339 Ortlund.pdf

Another approach is to say that works inevitably follow from faith. I think that's a position I'd take. Jesus says that good trees produce good fruit. Note however that in the Reformed tradition, salvation includes all of the consequences of faith, so it includes both justification and the Christian life (works, sort of, but Paul aways uses works in a negative sense). This depends upon your concept of faith. I see Paul's faith as equivalent to Jesus' idea of being his follower. It's not precisely a set of actions, but it's an orientation that results in and is shown by actions. I don't think you can be a follower without following. That would be nonsense.

 

[RDKirk]

It's not precisely a set of actions, but it's an orientation that results in and is shown by actions. I don't think you can be a follower without following. That would be nonsense.

So when someone says, "I follow Jesus," it would be legitimate to ask, "Yeah? Where have you and Jesus been lately?"

 

[hedrick]

So when someone says, "I follow Jesus," it would be legitimate to ask, "Yeah? Where have you and Jesus been lately?"

It would be legitimate for God to ask that. Indeed he will surely ask something like that eventually. Other people? Depends upon your reading of “judge not ...” and what kind of relationship you have. Of course people naturally watch each other’s actions all the time, so Christians are regularly judged that way.

 

[RDKirk]

It would be legitimate for God to ask that. Indeed he will surely ask something like that eventually. Other people?

That's what "witness" is all about. If I've been somewhere with Jesus, I'm obligated to Him to let people know about it.

Depends upon your reading of “judge not ...” and what kind of relationship you have. Of course people naturally watch each other’s actions all the time, so Christians are regularly judged that way.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

And other similar verses, such as we see in 1 Peter and James.

 

[zoidar]

There is a difference between somebody saying "read through the Holy Spirit" and actually reading the Scriptures with His guidance.
Just because somebody tells you they received something from the Holy Spirit does not make it so,

True, but it's impossible to know who gets something from the Holy Spirit and not. I'm sure some Lutherans get things from the Holy Spirit, and I'm sure Catholics and Pentacostals do as well, still we got many different churches and denominations. If the Holy Spirit would give us clear guidiance reading the scripture, we would only have one Church.

For yourself, it's of course great if you know the Holy Spirit is talking to you, but I believe in most matters the Holy Spirit won't precise the scripture for you. That is why it's important to learn about the teachings of the early Church.

 

[zoidar]

Some Lutherans understand Paul to say that we are justified entirely through faith, but once he's done that, we're responsible for how we respond. That's how I understand this response from the LCMS: https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#lose.

Calvinists don't, but predestination complicates assessing the Calvinist position on loss of salvation.

For this reason I generally object to "salvation by faith alone." Paul taught "justification by faith alone." When he speaks of justification by faith it's clear he was excluding works.

Many NT scholars will say that we are justified by faith and judged according to works. When you take 1 Cor into account, Paul seems to say that. I believe Jesus does as well. The position I attribute to Lutherans, however, is not the only way to deal with this. While justified by faith and judged according to works is widely accepted, there are a number of understandings of how it works. This article attempts to show the major categories: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-2/JETS 52-2 323-339 Ortlund.pdf

Another approach is to say that works inevitably follow from faith. I think that's a position I'd take. Jesus says that good trees produce good fruit. Note however that in the Reformed tradition, salvation includes all of the consequences of faith, so it includes both justification and the Christian life (works, sort of, but Paul aways uses works in a negative sense). This depends upon your concept of faith. I see Paul's faith as equivalent to Jesus' idea of being his follower. It's not precisely a set of actions, but it's an orientation that results in and is shown by actions. I don't think you can be a follower without following. That would be nonsense.

In Romans 4 Paul says Abraham was justified by faith and not by works of the Mosaic law. People understand it like we don't need to follow Jesus commands to be saved, that it's just about believing in him. But Paul is comparing faith and what comes with faith to what comes with being circumcised, the whole Mosaic Law. He never says we dont't need to keep Jesus commands. On the contrary he says in Romans 7-8 that he got to power throught the Holy Spirit to live rightfully, which he never could do before as un unsaved Jew. He goes on and says that if we don't live righteous lives, we will die.