Posted on 02/07/2012 4:57:57 PM PST by bibletruth
Bible proof in Acts 26, 22, Romans 2, and Ephesians 3, that God and Christ made HIS choice for Paul to be HIS Apostle to the Gentiles
Ephesians 3:7: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Remember, these are God's WORDs, not men's words. Take heed.
Many of the disciples met Christ face-to-face (and not because they were persecuting His followers).
We use the phrase “12 Apostles”; I don’t see Paul in that number.
The Jewish repulsion of Paul is germane also because Paul explained the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a gospel of grace, not works. A lot of people, especially the Pharisees, don’t like to hear that it’s all about Jesus’ finished work and not their legalistic self-efforts.
The point I was making, that I also think God's Word is making, is that Peter in Acts 1 was still running ahead of God the way he always tended to do. He didn't wait for Him to come in the form of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, as Jesus had told him. So their efforts in Acts 1 seemed to come to naught including the selection of Matthias. The weak and futile efforts of the Acts 1 church became powerful and effective in the spirit-filled Acts 2 church.
God called Paul to be an instrument to take the gospel to the gentiles...he did not call him an apostle....
"Apostle" means "one who is sent." As you say, that certainly was Paul. The Word of God calls Paul an apostle in scriptures already referenced and in other verses as well. Paul by the Holy Spirit announced often (he had to, not unlike Jesus) that God had called him to be an apostle. If Paul wasn't an apostle he'd be discredited as a liar by God's Word and the other apostles. But Peter himself acknowledged the truth and wisdom in Paul in 2 Peter 3:15.
The scripture is pretty obvious on the matter. It identifies him as an apostle. His whole story is one of someone who was radically chosen to preach the Gospel to a huge segment of the world. A large portion of the NT is written by Paul, the Apostle of Christ, who was specifically chosen, snatched from the fires of hell in a way, in a miraculous face to face encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.
Unless you’re trying to deny some teaching that you think only exists in Paul’s writings, there is no reason to deny this fundamental aspect of history.
“They are wonderful verses, and thank you for them, but I’m not sure who/what is contesting the annointing of Paul to preach to the gentiles.”
Many on the left including liberal mainline denominations hate Paul b/c of his teachings on the role of women and on the subject of homosexuality. Thats why they use the whole “but Jesus never talked about it” yada yada. I would strongly recommend Martin Luther’s Commentary on the Galatians. He does an excellent job expounding on Paul’s gospel and apostleship.
And as I say, it does not take away from his teaching to not be called an apostle..
If we are going to imagine the Peter was just too quick and didn't wait for God is not what the scripture states. If we are going to imagine a little (not meant as an insult) I could see Paul calling himself an apostle and Peter getting tired of correcting him just let it ride and left it up to God.
It is written Paul had a thorn of the flesh that he asked God to remove and it was denied. Perhaps this thorn was a little too much pride (he put himself on the same level as the original 12) For he certainly didn't fulfill the necessary terms for being called an apostle, but had to live with the fact that his pride was not taken away as a reminder to be humble before the Lord.
Pride had to be one of his major problems as he was well versed in scripture to the point of feeling he had a right to kill the followers of Jesus teachings.
Those past acts could have been the reason that in scripture, Jesus called him his *instrument* to the gentiles as that would make him not on the same level as the apostles that had followed him since the beginning of his ministry...
I have seen others make the same argument that it was Peter's fault that he was too hasty. That, to me says Gee Whiz God didn't know that, and God should have called him an apostle and he didn't...
Peter was quite clear in what it took to be an apostle (one who was sent) but I am sure, being human, that gave them amongst the followers a little more authority. Remembering all the time that they didn't seek this, but by the nature of their being with the Lord from the beginning this gave them authority..
Perhaps in the beginning, Paul did not like being merely an instrument and in human terms wanted the same authority as the original 12 + and minus one Judas. Add one Matthias...Don't we all to this day think Paul more authoritative than Matthias, yet the lot to be called apostle fell to Matthias for he and the others being considered had all the prerequisites Peter laid out... put side by side, Paul doesn't fall into that category...
But the original 12 with Matthias added was to preach only to the house of Israel and much of what many of them said or taught is not writted down..As all of them were Jews...and well versed in Holy Scripture of the OT.
And then about 17 years later Peter, James, and John met with him in Jerusalem and agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.
THank you for the insight and the recommendation!
I have no issues with Paul, just a legitimate question. In terms of his writings, they seem to upset all the right people as far as I’m concerned.
I had not thought of that. Thanks for the insight.
Paul’s thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan (see 2 Cor. 12:7-10) sent to attack Paul’s ministry because of the revelation of the New Birth. God had nothing to do with sending a messenger of Satan to attack one of His children. Satan was constantly attacking and persecuting Paul’s ministry because he was very effective at getting people out of Satan’s dominion and into the Kingdom of God.
All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. (2 Timothy 3:12) Jesus says: I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. (Luke 10:19) And God’s grace will see to it that we will be victorious over the enemy as Paul later confirmed in Romans 8:37 - No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. And in 2 Timothy 3 - You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them.
There is nothing wrong with being exalted as long as God is doing it (which would be the case with Paul who was receiving Wisdom and revelations and was teaching them all over the ancient world). — Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time. 2 Peter 5:6
Even Peter admitted that what Paul taught was sometimes hard to understand. He knew Jesus first through His senses and later spiritually after Pentecost. No doubt he had to renew his mind as the Holy Spirit taught him - see the vision on the rooftop concerning the trip to Cornelius’ house.
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16
I really don’t see any competition between Peter, John and Paul etc for who was first or most important. They had a love and respect for each other that is seen in most of their writing. Only when Peter’s hypocrisy was rebuked by Paul when it came to the Jew/Gentile issues of the early Church was there any contention and it was done in a very respectful way as acknowledged by Peter.
BTW - the man that persecuted the Church, Saul, died on the Damascus road. He was spiritually reborn as a child of God and filled with the Holy Spirit shortly after that experience. He knew Jesus quite well. Even when it sounds like boasting, Paul gives credit to God’s grace for his work.
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 1 Corinthians 15:9-10
The “yet not I” tells you pride was not a problem Paul suffered.
Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people Acts 14:14
I think the point of a discussion like this is the authority of God's Word. Paul wrote most of the books in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit witnesses that these words and revelations were given by God. God's Word doesn't lie no matter who the author is. Jesus said, I'm the Way the Truth and the Life. You don't discount Jesus' words because He testified about himself do you, the way the Pharisees did? Jesus said two witnesses were needed to verify the truth and said His Father and He were the two who witnesses who testified to the truth of what He was saying. So when Paul says in scripture which cannot lie, in Galatians 1:1, Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) , the Holy Spirit, the author of scripture, is the second witness (also the Father and the Body of Christ).
Would you give Cp. and Vs where it is written this thorn concerned his ministry and not him (a human being). Although he may have been full of the holy spirit, that does not mean he was also not a man that could have faults and problems with a thorn of flesh...I am sorry I do not have cp. and vs for that, perhaps you could find it, but I know it is scriptual. But in the cp and vs you mention, (thank you for it) Paul does relate this to keeping him from being too elated (or could being too elated be another way of saying I get too puffed up or prideful) This is a question I have pondered many times.
I am not a big believer in the old Devil made me do it excuse. Its a great way to give us excuses for our own faults and sins...blame it on the devil...just like Eve did and did not take responsibility for her own sin. There fore Satan was not mentioned.
The question was why Paul decided to call himself an apostle when he did not meet Peters criteria for being considered a possible replacement for Judas (necessary to be considered an apostle)....Acts 1 vs 21 -26. There were 12 apostles chosen by Jesus, Matthias made it 12 again.
Jesus's own words to Ananias (Acts Cp 9 vs 15) was that Paul would be his instrument to take the gospel to the gentiles etc....Did Jesus tell Ananias that Paul was to be his apostle to the gentiles....the answer is no, he did not...who do you believe, Jesus words or what Paul called himself. For this reason I think his sin of the flesh may have been pride in putting himself on the same level as the apostles as there was no way he could meet Peters criteria. So was Peter and Jesus wrong and Paul right for calling himself an apostle....simple question.
I don't think you answered the question although you do defend Paul quite well. But you cannot use Pauls own words when he calls himself an apostle, because whether he was or not at the time is the question...Jesus says "instrument", Peter sets criteria...Paul does not meet the criteria and Jesus did not say you will be my apostle...
Just a simple question
Your “simple question” is a strawman.
Jesus appointed Paul as the 12th apostle as he lay face down on the Damascus road. He never gave the other apostles permission to appoint a replacement apostle.
Without that permission, their actions were invalid.
God called him (Paul) his instrument to take the gosple to gentiles etc, Acts 9 vs 15-16 does not say apostle...From Gods mouth to Ananias ear...He did not say he will be my apostle, tho he could have if he wanted to..God is not a man that he should lie.
guess you don’t read the bible much....or just make it up as you go along...Matthias was the 12th apostle....long before Saul started on the road to Damascus...
Acts tells us that Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles. Twelve is the number that is associated with God’s government in scripture and here we have an interesting parallel between the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes of Israel.
The list of tribes in Revelation 7 adds the tribes of Joseph and Levi and leaves out the tribes Ephraim and Dan. Is it possible that both Matthias and Paul were apostles? Two of them would be left out in Revelation 14:21.
Don't know why you insist on this line of thinking, but tell me which of the apostles God directly called His apostles.
I just never quite understood why Paul was called apostle and the scripture seems to say something different. I sure get a lot of different answers. You ask another question, what happened to those 2 tribes...
Its been quite a while since I read Revelations but will have to reread it again...along with that part of the OT that list the tribes. You add something that I had not thought of IE: number of tribes listed in the beginning and end of the books. :O)
There is zero evidence in the scriptures that Mathias ever functioned as an apostle. There is also no authorization contained anywhere in the scriptures for men to select apostles.
YHWH has always selected his own, without help from corruptible men.
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.