Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Recently, a friend emailed me with a very common claim, namely, that, “Paul hijacked Christianity with no personal connection with Jesus and filled his letters with personal opinions.” This could be rephrased in the more common claim: Paul invented Christianity.
This claim is especially common among Muslim apologists who use it in an attempt to explain why the Qur’an simultaneously affirms Jesus as a true prophet while also contradicting the Bible at every major point. However, since my friend is not a Muslim and is not coming at the issue from that angle, I will just deal with the question more broadly.
My friend alleges that some of the “personal opinions” of Paul that were interjected into the New Testament include: “slaves obey your masters; women not to have leadership roles in churches; homosexuality is a sin (though there is Old Testament authority for this last, Paul doesn’t seem to base his opinion on it).”
“None of [of the above] were said by Jesus and would perhaps be foreign to his teaching,” he wrote. “I think Paul has created a lot of mischief in Christianity, simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived.”
Let’s deal with this point-by-point.
No personal connection to Jesus
Paul, in fact, did have a personal connection to Jesus. This is revealed in the famous “Damascus road” accounts in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6–11 and Acts 26:12–18. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke.
The only way one can maintain that Paul had no connection to Jesus is to rule out the conversion experience of Paul a priori based on a presupposition. Of course, I can argue that such a presupposition is untenable, but that would take an entire post to itself. For the sake of brevity, I would just point out that it is illogical to employ such reasoning. It would go something like, “It didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen because it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen therefore Paul had no personal connection to Jesus.”
Personal opinions
Yes, Paul does interject his personal opinions into his writing! However, when he does, he clearly delineates what he is saying as his personal opinion as an Apostle.
For instance, in dealing with the issue of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly distinguishes between his own statements and the Lord’s.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10, Paul says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)…” and in 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul says, “To the rest I say, (I, not the Lord)…” This example shows that Paul was not in the business of putting words in the mouth of Jesus. Paul had no problem showing when he was giving his own charge and when it was a statement made by the Lord Jesus, as it was in this case (Matthew 5:32).
Yet it is important to note that other Apostles recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16).
Paul’s “personal opinions” and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldn’t have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldn’t for over 1,000 years.
The claim that there is only Old Testament authority for the last of the examples is false. The same goes for the claim that Paul does not base his statements on the Law.
It is abundantly clear that Paul actually does derive his statements on homosexual activity from the Law.
For instance, in 1 Timothy 1, Paul mentions homosexuality in the context of the type of people the Law was laid down for (1 Timothy 1:9-11). This short list indicts all people, just as Paul does elsewhere (Romans 3:23), showing that all people require the forgiveness that can only be found through faith in Jesus Christ.
When Paul deals with it elsewhere, he mentions it in the context of other activities explicitly prohibited by the Law (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), again going back to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ sets apart (sanctifies) His people and justifies them.
As for the command for slaves to obey their masters, this is regularly claimed to be objectionable by critics. By way of introduction, is important to distinguish between what we have in our mind about the institution of slavery as Americans and the institution of slavery as it existed in Paul’s day. After all, Paul explicitly listed “enslaverers” (or man-stealers) in the same list mentioned above (1 Tim 1:10). Since the entire institution of slavery in the United States was built upon the kidnapping of people, it is clearly radically different from what Paul spoke of. Furthermore, the stealing of a man was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:16). The practice of slavery in America would never have existed if the Bible was actually being followed.
Paul also exhorted his readers to buy their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7:21) and instructing the master of a runaway slave to treat him as “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 11). Paul grounded his statements in the defense of “the name of God and the teaching.” Paul said that bondservants should “regard their masters as worthy of all honor,” not just for the sake of doing so, but so there might be no chance to slander the name of God and the gospel.
The fact is that Paul knew the Law quite well (Philippians 3:5-6) and the Law does deal with slavery.
Ultimately, the claim made by my friend requires more fleshing out on his end and some evidence on his part in order to be more fully dealt with.
Paul’s teachings foreign to Jesus’ teachings?
This is another common claim. First off, one must ask if this statement implies that Jesus would simply have to repeat everything Paul said and vice-versa or else they would remain foreign.
The fact is that there is nothing contradictory between Paul’s writings and Jesus’ teaching. One must wonder why Luke – a traveling companion of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts – would have no problem writing the gospel that bears his name if he perceived such a contradiction. Furthermore, one must wonder why this apparent conflict was lost on the earliest Christians, including the Apostle Peter, who viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture (see above).
In affirming the Law (Matthew 5:17), Jesus affirmed all that Paul that was clearly grounded in the Law. Furthermore, if there was a real contradiction between Paul’s writings and the teachings of Jesus, Paul would have been rejected, instead of accepted as he has always been.
The Christian community existed before Paul became a Christian, as is clearly seen by the fact that he was persecuting Christians (Acts 8:1,3), and he even met with the leaders of the early church. They did not reject Paul, but instead affirmed what he had been teaching (Galatians 2:2,9). This makes it even clearer that Paul could not have invented or hijacked Christianity.
As for the claim that Paul has had such a large impact “simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived,” all one has to do is look at the other early Christian writings that survived in order to see that is not a valid metric.
We have seen that the claim that “Paul hijacked Christianity” is without evidence. While I have taken the burden of proof upon myself in responding to this claim, in reality the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim in the first place. No such evidence has been presented and no substantive evidence can be presented since Paul did not invent Christianity or hijack Christianity or anything similar to it. Instead, Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ commissioned to spread the gospel, something that he clearly did by establishing churches and penning many letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we can still read today.
When one reads the gospels and the other writings contained in the New Testament, the message is cohesive and clear: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23), God demands complete perfection (Mt 5:48) and all we have earned through our sin is death (Ro 6:23) and hell. Yet God offers the free gift of eternal life to all who repent and believe (Mk 1:15, Ro 10:9–11) in Jesus Christ, who died as a propitiation (Ro 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 Jn 4:10) for all who would ever believe in Him (Jn 6:44) and rose from the grave three days later, forever defeating sin and death. Those who believe in Him can know (1 John 5:13) that they have passed from death to life (Jn 5:24) and will not be condemned (Jn 3:18), but will be given eternal life by Jesus Christ (Jn 6:39-40). Paul and Jesus in no way contradict each other on what the gospel is, in fact the four gospels and Paul’s letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
It shows the ex-prot in me is showing through, but if someone with an IQ more than double digits looked at them in context they would notice a pattern.
It shows the ex-prot in me is showing through, but if someone with an IQ more than double digits looked at them in context they would notice a pattern.
Although there are many, it will suffice to provide just one of the many scriptures to show that you are ridiculously wrong...
1Co_5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
2Co 11:15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.
It doesn't fit because Paul is here talking about false apostles, ministers of Satan, and of course they have no redemption and are totally on their own in terms of works justification. Not a good place to be, and certainly not reflective of the Christian's position of being in a state of pardon thanks to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
As for the Revelation 20 passages, those being judged all missed the first resurrection, so they are all without Christ. What else can they be judged on but their works?
The other passages are indicative of what we already know and agree upon, that righteousness matters in the life of a believer, and there is an accounting for how we live our lives after we receive our legal justification via the death of Christ:
1Co 3:11-15 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; (13) Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (14) If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. (15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Now this is common knowledge amongst conservative Baptists and many other Bible-based groups. These will almost uniformly hold to one form or another of "perseverance of the saints," the idea that all true believers are changed persons, who will be inclined by their new nature to produce good works. So we have a legitimate expectation of salvation based on what Christ has done to expiate all our sins. But we also continue to be imperfect, and some will err more than others, and will lose reward for it. Yet they will be saved "as by fire," as Paul puts it.
So your "pattern" breaks down, which highlights the importance of context context context. Don't leave home without it. Or something like that. :)
Peace,
SR
KJV James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
How do you reconcile the scripture in Romans and Ephesians with the scripture you posted???
Are you advertising again???
Sometimes focus is a deliberate choice. Just sayin' ...
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
Okay, let's listen to King David, the "man after God's own heart", when he said, "There is no God.". It doesn't say that, you reply? If we look at the CONTEXT of what David said and read the words and verses around that snippet, we would see the Psalmist say, "A fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 53:1).
You bring up a single verse, divorced from it's context, ignoring all the OTHER verses that contradict what you claim this verse states and then what are we to do, toss out the doctrine of justification by faith APART from works that so many other verses say all because you find a sentence that says otherwise? Let me ask you this, would God contradict Himself? IF we really are "justified" by our faith AND our works, then what do we do with verses like:
yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:28)
Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. (Acts 13:38,39)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5)
Finally, let me ask you this simple question, was the sacrifice of Christ on the cross sufficient to satisfy the debt of our sins? If you say, yes, then how can your works improve on that perfect sacrifice when God says only by the shedding of blood is there atonement for sins? If, no, then why wasn't Christ's blood enough, why did he suffer so much if we had to ADD our own righteousness to the mix in order to be justified before God?
People look at the outward appearance and they see we are believers by our actions - they cannot see our hearts. God, on the other hand, sees our hearts and knows if our faith is real, He isn't fooled by outwards acts of righteousness. We are justified BEFORE GOD by faith and not by our works, because by works will NO ONE be justified. It is ALL by His grace.
One could just as well ask: How do YOU reconcile the Romans and EPH:, written by Paul, who never met, face to face with Jesus, did not walk, eat, sleep, talk and be taught with Jesus, as James the Just had, for years (until murdered in 62AD)- with what James the Just wrote - James, who was the LEADER of the followers after the Crucifixion, who was taught, in person, for years, by Jesus Himself -
with what Paul writes?
James 2:14 “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”
James 2:17 “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
James 2:18 “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
James 2:19 “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
James 2:20 “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”
James 2:24 “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”
The Didache, “Teachings of the Twelve Apostles” says the same as James.
All the scriptures you quote are by Paul. Many Christian Churches are based more on Paul’s teaching than Jesus’ - and are considered, by many, as “Paulinism”
And James was the leader until 62AD. What he wrote is also the same as in the Didache:
I see boatbums ignoring or misunderstanding the words of our LORD Jesus Christ and his Apostles to teach her own version of the gospel.
Grace is God’s gift to all. Grace is not based on works, lest any man should boast. God’s grace is effectual and sufficient unto salvation to all those who believe. Those who believe must be genuine and cooperate with God’s grace, else they are none of his.
Genuine faith produces love and good works. Faith without works is dead. Someone who loves God will keep his commandments because he is born of God, loves God, and does not frustrate the grace of God. Someone who does not keep his commandments is trapped in some sin. There are grave and severe warnings from the LORD for such a person which should not be ignored.
At some point protestants must realize that their main hymn should be Que sera sera. Female pastors, endorsing and performing same sex "marriages", not one of them has a written statement opposing abortion.
As I have said before; There is no such thing as a conservative protestant evangelical church. Individuals may be conservative, but not one of their churches is.
Having female clergy is a tell tale sign, one the Catholic and Orthodox churches will do well to avoid; Paul was very clear on this.
I suspect there is a conservative Protestant evangelical church out there somewhere. The Fundamentalist churches should fit that criteria. I did come across a story about Bob Jones University opting to shed the label "Fundamentalist" now though. I find that telling, a sign of the times. BJU leaders are also weighing alternatives to the "fundamentalist" label that has proudly defined the school (and a wide swath of the Bible Belt) since the 1920s. "Basically, we've decided that we can't use that term," said Carl Abrams, a BJU history professor and a longtime member of the faculty. "The term has been hijacked and it takes you 30 minutes to explain it. So you need something else."
The decentralized authority they love to tout means that every one of them can customize their own "doctrines and dogmatic" teaching.
If you disagree with what they are teaching either wait 15 minutes, or go to the church down the road with a similar name.
Interesting interpretation;
I have been around long enough to finally make a declaration on this kind of thing and be certain that I'm right:
Nobody knows what anyone else is talking about anymore.
We see it happen time and again, someone posts what they think is the masterstroke against the other side (like that sola scriptura thread) and everyone on the other side says "that's not at all what we believe". If Protestants are laughing as much at Catholic misunderstandings of Protestant beliefs as I am at what the Protestants think we believe, we've got the funniest thing going on since the Dead Parrot sketch.
Catholics don't believe we can earn heaven anymore than Protestants believe a single prayer uttered 30 years ago ensures their salvation.
I know half of us used to be on the other side of the fence from where we are today and think that makes us experts on what the others believe but it has become abundantly clear to me that this is not the case. We talk past each other and over each other so much that there's hardly anything worth commenting on anymore... other than the fact that we all need to be spending more time praying and less time yelling at each other.
To that end I strongly recommend that my fellow Catholics check out this link and load the app onto your iphone or ipad. Then USE it throughout the day, especially before you post. It will make a world of difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.