Protestantism and Paul

[Qoeleth]

Whenever I read Protestant material, it seems like they refer primarily, if not exclusively, to the writings of Paul.

Some writers contrast Christianity and ‘Paulism’. Would it be fair to say the Catholics (with our emphasis on the Gospels), are Christians, but Protestants (who are perpetually quoting from Paul), are actually ‘Paulists’?

 

[fhansen]

Whenever I read Protestant material, it seems like they refer primarily, if not exclusively, to the writings of Paul.

Some writers contrast Christianity and ‘Paulism’. Would it be fair to say the Catholics (with our emphasis on the Gospels), are Christians, but Protestants (who are perpetually quoting from Paul), are actually ‘Paulists’?

Well, Paul would certainly reject the title-seeing as he didn’t believe in their “faith alone” theory and all.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Were called Catholics because of the Greek word Katolic (I think that’s how it is said, someone please correct me) which mean Universal. Which Paul calls the Church the Universal Church, Greek the Katolis Church, English the Catholic Church.

So Catholicism means Universalism meaning the faith is Universal.

 

[Qoeleth]

Were called Catholics because of the Greek word Katolic (I think that’s how it is said, someone please correct me) which mean Universal. Which Paul calls the Church the Universal Church, Greek the Katolis Church, English the Catholic Church.

So Catholicism means Universalism meaning the faith is Universal.

Yes, but still the Pauline direction seems to form the basis of Protestantism (hence the observation that Protestants obsessively quote Paul)- whereas the Petrine leads to Catholicism (both historically and theologically). From Galatians, it is pretty clear the Paul differed from the Petrine and Jacobine tradition.

By the way, the third letter of the Greek is a theta- so it would seem better to stick to the “th” transliteration.

 

[blakjak12]

You may be interested in reading Corinthians 11, which seems to pertain to this subject as well:

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=53

 

[Edmundus1581]

Whenever I read Protestant material, it seems like they refer primarily, if not exclusively, to the writings of Paul.

Some writers contrast Christianity and ‘Paulism’. Would it be fair to say the Catholics (with our emphasis on the Gospels), are Christians, but Protestants (who are perpetually quoting from Paul), are actually ‘Paulists’?

I agree that there is something in your premise. When I was a Protestant I noticed that most of the theology which people spoke of was derived from Paul, and that the theology tended to water down the more vivid and direct teachings of Jesus and the Gospels (particularly on faith and works, but, also, for example, “On this rock I will build my Church”, “Those whose you forgive…”). On enquiring into Catholicism I found that the Gospels are more central.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, but still the Pauline direction seems to form the basis of Protestantism (hence the observation that Protestants obsessively quote Paul)- whereas the Petrine leads to Catholicism (both historically and theologically). From Galatians, it is pretty clear the Paul differed from the Petrine and Jacobine tradition.

By the way, the third letter of the Greek is a theta- so it would seem better to stick to the “th” transliteration.

This is because all of protestantism relies on the private interpretation of scripture. Problem: Private interpretation of scripture is prohibited by the bible (2 Peter 1:20). Solution: Ignore that verse and incessantly repeat Romans 3:28, mantra-like, until believed. Of course, not all do this - only the most irritating ones - those who leave flyers under your windshield wipers, for example.

Why do they zero in on Paul? The main reason is because some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand and easily twisted by the ignorant and unstable. (2 Peter 3:16)

Some oddball Gentile Christians actually hold solely to Paul’s writings (to the exclusion of the rest of the NT), as he is the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13). They believe that only Paul’s writings pertain to them, as a Gentile.

 

[patrick457]

I should note with some interest that there is actually a movement mainly found within Protestant biblical scholarly circles which seeks to look at Paul’s writings in their historical context, the so-called New Perspective on Paul. As in other areas in this field there is a huge diversity of opinion but ‘New Perspectivists’ all seem to agree that taken within the original context, the traditional Protestant interpretation of Paul’s letters is flawed.

Another trivia. There was one guy in the early Church who accepted only Paul: Marcion. He believed that Paul was the only correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus’ teachings and so he accepted only his letters along with Luke’s gospel (all heavily edited of course) as authoritative.

 

[po18guy]

Another trivia. There was one guy in the early Church who accepted only Paul: Marcion. He believed that Paul was the only correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus’ teachings and so he accepted only his letters along with Luke’s gospel (all heavily edited of course) as authoritative.

I believe that there is a Marcionist(?) Marcionite(?) that occasionally calls CA’s live radio show. An oddball, to be sure.

 

[patrick457]

I believe that there is a Marcionist(?) Marcionite(?) that occasionally calls CA’s live radio show. An oddball, to be sure.

Really?

Marcion’s the same man who thought that Yhwh of the Old Testament was this jealous, vengeful tribal ‘god’ who likes smiting people left and right as punishment for sins. He insisted that Yhwh can’t be the supreme God by interpreting the OT literally, where for example in Genesis Yhwh walks around in Eden asking where Adam was. Marcion read this in a literal way: for him, Yhwh apparently had a physical body with which to walk through the Garden and was not omniscient - therefore Yhwh could not be the same as the ‘Heavenly Father’, which has no bodily form and is all-knowing. For Marcion the ‘Heavenly Father’ has no connection with the material world (something which Yhwh created) whatsoever, but because He is highly merciful and is generally so awesome a God He still sent His Son to save mankind anyway.

In addition to being a dualist, Marcion was also docetic: for him Jesus did not really take on material flesh and became human but was or less a mere apparition. Still, Jesus was somehow able to save the world by (appearing to) die on the cross.

 

[po18guy]

Really?

Marcion’s the same man who thought that Yhwh of the Old Testament was this jealous, vengeful tribal ‘god’ who likes smiting people left and right as punishment for sins. He insisted that Yhwh can’t be the supreme God by interpreting the OT literally, where for example in Genesis Yhwh walks around in Eden asking where Adam was. Marcion read this in a literal way: for him, Yhwh apparently had a physical body with which to walk through the Garden and was not omniscient - therefore Yhwh could not be the same as the ‘Heavenly Father’, which has no bodily form and is all-knowing. For Marcion the ‘Heavenly Father’ has no connection with the material world (something which Yhwh created) whatsoever, but because He is highly merciful and is generally so awesome a God He still sent His Son to save mankind anyway.

In addition to being a dualist, Marcion was also docetic: for him Jesus did not really take on material flesh and became human but was or less a mere apparition. Still, Jesus was somehow able to save the world by (appearing to) die on the cross.

I don’t know if he is a full Marcionite, but he holds solely to Paul’s writings (+ maybe Luke, since Luke was a Gentile). Very odd. Tim Staples likes to have fun with him.

 

[fhansen]

I should note with some interest that there is actually a movement mainly found within Protestant biblical scholarly circles which seeks to look at Paul’s writings in their historical context, the so-called New Perspective on Paul. As in other areas in this field there is a huge diversity of opinion but ‘New Perspectivists’ all seem to agree that taken within the original context, the traditional Protestant interpretation of Paul’s letters is flawed.

Another trivia. There was one guy in the early Church who accepted only Paul: Marcion. He believed that Paul was the only correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus’ teachings and so he accepted only his letters along with Luke’s gospel (all heavily edited of course) as authoritative.

There’s also a sola scriptura-based movement, very small I"m sure, that adamantly maintains Paul was teaching his own, false gospel, opposed to the teachings of Christ. It’s amazing what all one can glean from the bible alone.

 

[JonNC]

Whenever I read Protestant material, it seems like they refer primarily, if not exclusively, to the writings of Paul.

Some writers contrast Christianity and ‘Paulism’. Would it be fair to say the Catholics (with our emphasis on the Gospels), are Christians, but Protestants (who are perpetually quoting from Paul), are actually ‘Paulists’?

Is it Christian or “Paulist” when I say that Lutherans preach Christ and Him crucified?

Is it Christian or Paulist when Lutherans say:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I think to make a distinction between Christ and what Paul writes is, in fact, a distinction without a difference, and only provides fodder to some who say falsely that Paul changed Christ’s message.

Jon

 

[grannymh]

Whenever I read Protestant material, it seems like they refer primarily, if not exclusively, to the writings of Paul.

Some writers contrast Christianity and ‘Paulism’. Would it be fair to say the Catholics (with our emphasis on the Gospels), are Christians, but Protestants (who are perpetually quoting from Paul), are actually ‘Paulists’?

When one uses the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition properly, one quickly discovers that many basic Catholic doctrines use the teachings of St. Paul.

 

[po18guy]

Is it Christian or “Paulist” when I say that Lutherans preach Christ and Him crucified?

Is it Christian or Paulist when Lutherans say:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I think to make a distinction between Christ and what Paul writes is, in fact, a distinction without a difference, and only provides fodder to some who say falsely that Paul changed Christ’s message.

Jon

As absurd as it seems, there is an increasing movement which claims that Paul is the founder of Christianity. As well, the “Roman’s Road” evangelicals will rarely quote our Lord, preferring to quote Paul out of context in support of their Kindergarten theology. The poor folks who follow CARM, for example, are taught to reject baptism!

 

[JonNC]

As absurd as it seems, there is an increasing movement which claims that Paul is the founder of Christianity. As well, the “Roman’s Road” evangelicals will rarely quote our Lord, preferring to quote Paul out of context in support of their Kindergarten theology. The poor folks who follow CARM, for example, are taught to reject baptism!

Gottcha, and I guess they reject 1 Peter, too. I guess I responded to the OP out of concern that s/he appears under the impression that (all) protestants do this. Say what one will about Luther’s mass, we do maintain a lectionary that includes the OT, Psalms (usually the Introit), Epistles - though not limited to Paul, and the Gospel +.

I seem to spend more time here distinguishing Lutheranism from protestantism than from Catholicism.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

Gottcha, and I guess they reject 1 Peter, too. I guess I responded to the OP out of concern that s/he appears under the impression that (all) protestants do this. Say what one will about Luther’s mass, we do maintain a lectionary that includes the OT, Psalms (usually the Introit), Epistles - though not limited to Paul, and the Gospel +.

I seem to spend more time here distinguishing Lutheranism from protestantism than from Catholicism.

Jon

Sadly, there seems to be no other umbrella term to use.

 

[Della]

Sadly, there seems to be no other umbrella term to use.

The better term than Protestant would be Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals. Most liturgical Christians, such as Lutherans like JonC, do not use Paul in the way being discussed in this thread.

I was a member of the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal sect that heavily relied upon Paul. It was as if the work of Christ being accomplished, the Gospels were only accounts of how he did that and referred to as such, although covertly not overtly, while Paul was the one to whom we looked for theology. Of course, with that outlook and no promise of infallibility, we skewed Paul to fit the sola scriptura/sola fide mode, although we were not OSAS like many of our Baptist brethren. Theology is complicated enough without pitching such camps, but there you have it.

 

[po18guy]

The better term than Protestant would be Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals.

F.A.S.E. I like it!

 

[JonNC]

“… preferring to quote Paul out of context in support of their** Kindergarten theology**.”

---

F.A.S.E. I like it!

So, po, what you are saying is they are going through a F.A.S.E.?

Jon