Do Some Protestants Favor Paul Over Jesus?

[Fidelis]

I have always had the impression that many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are more focused on the teachings of the Apostle Paul as found in the Book of Acts and in his Epistles than they are on the teaching of Jesus as we find them in the Gospels. For example, I had an adult friend that had attended a large Baptist church for several years. She actually had the entire Letter to the Romans memorized, carrying around a pocket-sized copy in her pocket. However, in a discussion we had about the Communion of Saints, I brought up the Transfiguration. She claimed to never have heard of it, and when I showed it to her in the Scriptures, she was wide-eyed with astonishment!

This whole idea was recently brought home to me as I was reading a book about salvation and justification. The following quote is from well-known anti-Catholic apologist James White:

"Instead, we must allow the primary expositor of this issue, in this case, the Apostle Paul, to speak first; his epistles to the Romans and Galatians must define the issues, for it is in them that we have direct discussions of exactly how justification takes place. Once we have consulted these sources, we can then move on to garner other elements of the biblical revelation that are found in *tangential * ways elsewhere. (James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 147, emphasis his)

That Jesus himself clearly taught on salvation and justification is easily apprehended just by reading the Gospels. To me, it is amazing that someone would think that Jesus’ teachings are second to ANYONE, even the great Apostle Paul!

Comments?

 

[santaro75]

I know what you are saying.

as for communing with saints, do the protestants deny the transfiguration? and the images in revelations for the intercessors before the throne?

 

[chrisg93]

Yes, not all but a substantial number of Prot/Evan/Fund preachers practice Bible worship and Paul worship…

OR the other explanation is…

They are simply afraid of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-It is hard to preach chastity, rejection of wealth, the narrow way, humility and meekness, loosing your life, keeping his commandments, taking up your cross daily and Jesus’ other words. They don’t want to alienate their congregation and they do not have the inner strength themselves to talk about such things. They would much rather talk about Paul and justification by faith that is phony.

-Or they prefer to tell the Old Testimate stories about David and Goliath, Noah’s Ark and so forth using them as entertainment that hold the congregations attention wonderfully, but are non-confrontational, non-demanding and easily digested.

-They also want to downplay the many words of Jesus that would lead many people to the Catholic Church. Jesus points directly to the Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, the necessity of works, praying to the Saints, the Church as the earthly authority, no divorce, etc.

 

[Fidelis]

santaro75:

I know what you are saying.

as for communing with saints, do the protestants deny the transfiguration? and the images in revelations for the intercessors before the throne?

I get the impression they don’t give these images from Scripture much thought. Have you ever heard a sermon on the Transfiguration?

I mostly hear the same books and topics covered: Genesis (creationism vs. evolution); David (man after God’s own heart); Daniel/Ezekiel (End Times); Paul’s life and writings (evangelization and justification by faith alone vs. works); Revelation (End Times). Over and over.

 

[carol_marie]

It was my understanding as a Protestant that the gospels didn’t apply to the Gentiles… they had to do with the Jews… but after Paul preached to the Gentiles - we have his letters that apply to us?? I think it was dispensationalism (sp?) Meaning… different parts of the Bible applied to different times in history??

I might be botching this up… maybe there is another Evangelical poster who could correct me if I’ve stated it wrong??

 

[Fidelis]

carol marie:

It was my understanding as a Protestant that the gospels didn’t apply to the Gentiles… they had to do with the Jews… but after Paul preached to the Gentiles - we have his letters that apply to us?? I think it was dispensationalism (sp?) Meaning… different parts of the Bible applied to different times in history??

I might be botching this up… maybe there is another Evangelical poster who could correct me if I’ve stated it wrong??

I think you are right. A strict dipensationalist would say the only parts of the Bible that apply to us are Paul’s letters, one or two of the other letters (but not James) and the book of Revelation. Even some Evangelicals that would not consider themselves strict dispensationalists may unconsciously carry aspects of this line of thought into their theology.

 

[Philena]

As a Protestant, I heard many sermons preached using text from the Epistles, especially from Romans. I had the same thought, that the Catholics place much more emphasis on the Gospels and teachings of Jesus than the Protestants do. I wonder why? Maybe Protestants are interested in their interpretation of doctrine, while Catholics emphasize actually living what Jesus taught?

I also had noticed when debating Baptists, when I would quote a specific scripture, say from James, they would say “That epistle wasn’t written for you!” Huh? I didn’t know it was because of their dispensationalist teachings.

For people who appear to revere, or almost worship, their KJV Bible, they appear to pick and choose what parts to believe.

 

[Vincent1560]

chrisg93:

Yes, not all but a substantial number of Prot/Evan/Fund preachers practice Bible worship and Paul worship…

OR the other explanation is…

They are simply afraid of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-It is hard to preach chastity, rejection of wealth, the narrow way, humility and meekness, loosing your life, keeping his commandments, taking up your cross daily and Jesus’ other words. They don’t want to alienate their congregation and they do not have the inner strength themselves to talk about such things. They would much rather talk about Paul and justification by faith that is phony.

-Or they prefer to tell the Old Testimate stories about David and Goliath, Noah’s Ark and so forth using them as entertainment that hold the congregations attention wonderfully, but are non-confrontational, non-demanding and easily digested.

-They also want to downplay the many words of Jesus that would lead many people to the Catholic Church. Jesus points directly to the Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, the necessity of works, praying to the Saints, the Church as the earthly authority, no divorce, etc.

I believe you just lost your right to complain when Protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary and the Saints, and believing that their priests can forgive sin. If you can find me one single evangelical or fundamentalist who worships Paul, I would be astounded. I have been a Protestant for over ten years and been to many congregations and have yet to find a priest who believes Paul should be worshiped. It is taking a lot of restraint :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: not to say what I really think of your post, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it expresses ignorance and not malice. And please, for your sake “judge not lest you be judged.”

 

[joshua1]

Now that I have read this thread, I can remember my days as a fundamentalist. It does seem that the peachers used their “texts” from the pauline books alot more often than the Gospels. While the church recognize Pauls writings as inspired and good for learning, they DO NOT take preference over the Gospels. Its comforting that we get a reading from the Gospels every day.

 

[RonRule]

Yes, there are different degrees to which this idea is taken, depending on the protestant group. My dad is an expository preacher and definitely focuses on the epistles, through he has preached through a gospel or two and some old testament books.

Growing up, Jesus’ thoughts on salvation were definitely not a focus. I memorized plenty of paul’s writings however. If pressed, many people from my background would probably fall back on “Jesus was still under Law and taught Law.”

As far as Paul vs. James, my Dad taught that they didn’t fight each other, but fought back to back, fighting opposite extremes.

So, to answer your question: When it comes to a systematic explanation of christian theology, protestants in general, look to the epistles and especially to Paul.

 

[PJR]

This is amazing to me. So no wonder my sister will quote the Epistles ALL the time, and interprets them quite literally, but the words of Christ in the Gospels are talked over and around.

I have always wondered how protestants square taking even Old Testament literally, but not direct quotes from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself. So who was Jesus talking to when he said that you must eat his body or have no life?

Do they think then that Paul had a better line on the Father than Christ? Could someone explain the dispensationalism a little more? What denoms is this common to? Thanks, Paula

 

[PJR]

Vincent1560:

I believe you just lost your right to complain when Protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary and the Saints, and believing that their priests can forgive sin. If you can find me one single evangelical or fundamentalist who worships Paul, I would be astounded. I have been a Protestant for over ten years and been to many congregations and have yet to find a priest who believes Paul should be worshiped. It is taking a lot of restraint :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: not to say what I really think of your post, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it expresses ignorance and not malice. And please, for your sake “judge not lest you be judged.”

So are you saying that in your protestant denomination the Gospels have primacy over the Epistles? Do you take the words of Christ just as literally as the teachings of Paul?

Maybe you could point out the similarities with the Catholic Church on this issue. Some, like Anglicans, do have a closer understanding of the sacramental nature of the Church. In all fairness to what he wrote, there are a lot of evan/prots who stress Paul to the point his teachings seem more relevant. How do you see it for you then? When Jesus said, “Take this and eat it, this is my body…” What did he mean?

If your experience is different than the others here, please explain. I don’t think any malice was intended. Paula

 

[santaro75]

Vincent1560:

I believe you just lost your right to complain when Protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary and the Saints, and believing that their priests can forgive sin. If you can find me one single evangelical or fundamentalist who worships Paul, I would be astounded. I have been a Protestant for over ten years and been to many congregations and have yet to find a priest who believes Paul should be worshiped. It is taking a lot of restraint :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: not to say what I really think of your post, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it expresses ignorance and not malice. And please, for your sake “judge not lest you be judged.”

We don’t worship mary and the saints and we don’t think priests can forgive sins. Where are you getting this?

i know that you are ingorant of the catholic faith when you say things like this.

 

[Fidelis]

PJR:

If your experience is different than the others here, please explain. I don’t think any malice was intended. Paula

I don’t think any malice on this posters part was intended either, but it does bring up an interesting question: if “too much emphasis” (however that is defined) on Mary makes Catholics Mary worshippers, would not “too much emphasis” (however that is defined) on Paul’s writing make one a “Paul worshipper”? I’m not saying that it does (in fact, I say that it is probably not the case), but by the same token, then neither is the accusation against Catholics true.

My orignal point is that is seems some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, in their zeal for Scripture focus exclusively on Paul, sometimes at the expense of giving primacy of place to Jesus’ very own words in the Gospels. I think that’s why, for example, they have to explain away clear teachings in Scripture about men being judged by their works in Matthew 25. They compare it to what they think Paul teaches and say “That can’t be true.”

Could someone explain the dispensationalism a little more? What denoms is this common to? Thanks, Paula

Dispensationalism is the type of theology you run into with Hal Lindsay and the “Left Behind” folks. Basically, they believe that salvation history has been strictly divided into a series of covenants between God and man. Each covenant, or dispensation --between God and Adam, or Noah, or Abraham, or David, and so on-- eventually failed and gave way to the next dispensation. In this line of thinking, Jesus was part of the dispensation of the Jews of his time. He offered them the covenant and they failed to respond, so most of what he taught them was “put on hold” while God shifted into “Plan B” which includes us Gentiles. When this current dispensation - the “Church Age” -has been fulfilled and the true believers are “raptured” into heaven, then Jesus will return for his 1000 year reign on earth, and his teachings will again apply to the Jews, who will largely populate this “millenial reign.” This will last to the end of time. Then we have the final battle between Satan and God and God will win. The End.

I know it sounds contrived and convoluted, but that is what they believe and there has been a whole cottage industry since this doctrine was concocted in the 1800’s to piece together unrelated Scripture verses and historical events to make this system work. Needless to say, all this is direct contradiction to historical and orthodox Catholic teaching.

Anyway, here’s an article that explains it better than I could:
Waiting to Be Raptured
Dispensationalist Thought in America
By Carl El. Olson
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea1.asp

 

[Vincent1560]

santaro75:

We don’t worship mary and the saints and we don’t think priests can forgive sins. Where are you getting this?

i know that you are ingorant of the catholic faith when you say things like this.

lol, I think you missed my point. I was equivocating between the ignorance and lack of respect shown to evangelicals in the OP with statements that uninformed Protestants make regarding Catholics. Read my post a bit more carefully and God Bless.

 

[NonDenom]

Fidelis:

I have always had the impression that many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are more focused on the teachings of the Apostle Paul as found in the Book of Acts and in his Epistles than they are on the teaching of Jesus as we find them in the Gospels. For example, I had an adult friend that had attended a large Baptist church for several years. She actually had the entire Letter to the Romans memorized, carrying around a pocket-sized copy in her pocket. However, in a discussion we had about the Communion of Saints, I brought up the Transfiguration. She claimed to never have heard of it, and when I showed it to her in the Scriptures, she was wide-eyed with astonishment!

This whole idea was recently brought home to me as I was reading a book about salvation and justification. The following quote is from well-known anti-Catholic apologist James White:

That Jesus himself clearly taught on salvation and justification is easily apprehended just by reading the Gospels. To me, it is amazing that someone would think that Jesus’ teachings are second to ANYONE, even the great Apostle Paul!

Hi Cats
Good question, but I will have to answer NO. Jesus is my savior.
Thanks

 

[santaro75]

Vincent1560:

lol, I think you missed my point. I was equivocating between the ignorance and lack of respect shown to evangelicals in the OP with statements that uninformed Protestants make regarding Catholics. Read my post a bit more carefully and God Bless.

Sorry about that. I think i get used to certain accusations and i get into auto-apologetics mode.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In Acts 9, Jesus Christ is described as calling Paul “My chosen vessel”.​

To attack St. Paul is to attack the Gospel

End of argument.

 

[Vincent1560]

PJR:

So are you saying that in your protestant denomination the Gospels have primacy over the Epistles? Do you take the words of Christ just as literally as the teachings of Paul?

Maybe you could point out the similarities with the Catholic Church on this issue. Some, like Anglicans, do have a closer understanding of the sacramental nature of the Church. In all fairness to what he wrote, there are a lot of evan/prots who stress Paul to the point his teachings seem more relevant. How do you see it for you then? When Jesus said, “Take this and eat it, this is my body…” What did he mean?

If your experience is different than the others here, please explain. I don’t think any malice was intended. Paula

The issue of primacy is not particularly relevant, because evagelicals, such as myself believe that all Scripture is the inspired word of God. So it would be like asking “who do you listen to more God or God?” That said, Paul in certain passages specifies that a teaching he is presenting comes from Him, and is not a commandment of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:25-28 is an example

“25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress–that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.”

In these cases I regard Paul’s teachings as inferior to other biblical teachings since Paul is pointing out that God is not directly speaking through him. However I do beleive that given his closeness to the Lord it is wise to heed his advice. And of course the teachings of Christ as found in the gospels are regarded as absolute and infallible truths and Christ’s example of how to live as recorded in the gospels is the model by which we seek to conform our lives. Christ, not Paul or any other, is our savior and the one to whom we have surrendered ourselves too inroder to live through his grace. The mere notion that any one be they Paul, John, Bob, Jack or Jill could be more crucial to us than Jesus Christ is ridiculous becasue Christ is whom we have placed our faith. Paul’s writngs are so valued because Christ used Paul to demonstrate the enormity of his grace (read about Paul’s conversion in Acts, it is awesome) and to further reveal His will by inspiring Paul’s letter’s to the churches. So of course we value Paul’'s epistles because like the gospels they come from God to reveal to us God’s plan and His nature.

 

[Kevan]

God’s revelation in the Bible is progressive. The later parts tend to clarify the earlier parts. Paul clarifies the earlier words of the Lord Jesus, therefore we interpret Jesus in light of Paul, even as we interpret Moses in light of the prophets and interpret the prophets in light of Jesus.

One very helpful principle in Bible interpretation is to interpret historical passages in light of didactic passages. The gospels and Acts are history; they tell you what was said and what occurred, but they don’t always explain why it was said or why it occurred. For this reason, the book of Acts (especially) is the treasure chest of resources for all the weird heterodox movements that crop up in Protestantism.

That said, anybody who’s memorized Romans and doesn’t know about the transfiguration has been in a severely unbalanced church.