Protestantism and Paul

[fhansen]

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.

I believe F.A.S.E. would be a better umbrella with which to cover the main abusers of Pauls’ teachings but the early Reformers certainly also relied quite heavily on his writings to support doctrines that differed from Catholic teaching.

 

[patrick457]

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.

Well, St. Paul really helped shape and define Christianity as we know it today for a start. Which explains why people could accuse him of ‘inventing’ it.

 

[po18guy]

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

Jon

Like a virus.

 

[Edmundus1581]

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

Jon

Thanks for the efforts Jon! I’ve found it interesting.

My own background is Anglicanism, and, particularly, the evangelical school within it, where people would identify themselves as “Protestant” or “Evangelical”, before “Anglican”, and, indeed, happily crossed between the different denominations when they believed that the “preaching” or “fellowship” in their particular church was not in line with their beliefs.

~ Edmundus

 

[Della]

I believe F.A.S.E. would be a better umbrella with which to cover the main abusers of Pauls’ teachings but the early Reformers certainly also relied quite heavily on his writings to support doctrines that differed from Catholic teaching.

Yes, especially pitting James against Paul’s epistles with some wanting to negate James altogether.

And I like the term FASE. :tiphat: It seems Christianity goes through a lot of phases, depending on the heresy de jour.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, especially pitting James against Paul’s epistles with some wanting to negate James altogether.

Interestingly, one of Luther’s points about James (the “throw Jimmy in the fire” comment comes from this), was that the CC was pitting James against Paul and wanting to negate Paul.
I think the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and some of the other Lutheran - Catholic dialogues in America and Europe seems to point to a convergence in thought, that being James and Paul are not to be pitted against each other, rather they are to be understood in light of each other.

Jon

 

[Della]

Interestingly, one of Luther’s points about James (the “throw Jimmy in the fire” comment comes from this), was that the CC was pitting James against Paul and wanting to negate Paul.
I think the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and some of the other Lutheran - Catholic dialogues in America and Europe seems to point to a convergence in thought, that being James and Paul are not to be pitted against each other, rather they are to be understood in light of each other.

Jon

Unfortunately, many FASE folks do pit James against Paul totally misunderstanding/negating the balance between the two. I don’t recall a single sermon from James in the whole 20 years I was a member of the Assemblies of God. Paul was preached exclusively. Even the Gospels were hardly touched upon except for John 3:16. I don’t know if they still practice this sort of deliberate blindness, but they sure did 20+ years ago. That’s the other thing about ignoring some Scripture to near exclusion, isn’t it? That doing so skews how people see God, themselves and others, which leads to all sorts of dangerous attitudes and practices.

 

[fhansen]

Interestingly, one of Luther’s points about James (the “throw Jimmy in the fire” comment comes from this), was that the CC was pitting James against Paul and wanting to negate Paul.
I think the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and some of the other Lutheran - Catholic dialogues in America and Europe seems to point to a convergence in thought, that being James and Paul are not to be pitted against each other, rather they are to be understood in light of each other.

Jon

Trent maintained that faith without works was dead because, unless hope and charity (love) are added man cannot be considered to be just.

The council also added that man is justified by faith* in that* faith is the beginning and foundation of salvation, without which it’s impossible to please God. But since it’s a free gift, we’re said to be justified freely-neither faith nor works merit the grace of justification.

Understood this way there is no conflict between Paul and James.

 

[Della]

Another aspect of the emphasis on Paul is rather convoluted, but worth mentioning. Again, from my AoG days, in addition to what I’ve already written in other posts. we looked so much to Paul because we believed he was an independent voice apart from the Apostles, which proved to us that there was no unified Church, only churches started by individual Apostles and accountable to no one but the Apostle who first preached Christ to them. We cited verses such as Paul saying he “consulted no man” but got his Gospel from God, meaning, as we interpreted it, he didn’t need the other Apostles. This meant, in our estimation, that anyone might be called by God to preach his Gospel so no man needed a Magisterium to tell him he was approved to do so or what to preach. So, it was Paul all the way with us.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, especially pitting James against Paul’s epistles with some wanting to negate James altogether.

And I like the term FASE. :tiphat: It seems Christianity goes through a lot of phases, depending on the heresy de jour.

You coined it! I just acronymed it. Is that a word?

 

[Della]

You coined it! I just acronymed it. Is that a word?

Since English is a living language, new words/tenses are constantly being added, as demonstrated by the adding of new words and definitions in our dictionaries.

As more and more people take it upon themselves to interpret Paul for themselves, we could see even more denoms/definitions pop up, God save us!

 

[po18guy]

Another aspect of the emphasis on Paul is rather convoluted, but worth mentioning. Again, from my AoG days, in addition to what I’ve already written in other posts. we looked so much to Paul because we believed he was an independent voice apart from the Apostles, which proved to us that there was no unified Church, only churches started by individual Apostles and accountable to no one but the Apostle who first preached Christ to them. We cited verses such as Paul saying he “consulted no man” but got his Gospel from God, meaning, as we interpreted it, he didn’t need the other Apostles. This meant, in our estimation, that anyone might be called by God to preach his Gospel so no man needed a Magisterium to tell him he was approved to do so or what to preach. So, it was Paul all the way with us.

I would guess that neither Acts 15 nor Galatians 2:1-2 was focused on very much at AoG. Paul consulted with the Apostles as to the content of his Gospel, as well as over the circumcision question. Not much sign of independence on Paul’s part there. Yet, Paul, for all his confidence, humbled himself by traveling to the Apostles, risking correction or even rebuke if his Gospel were flawed. His early persecution of the Church may have compelled him to ensure the correctness of the doctrines he taught. Yet, we see that the truth was paramount here, both in God’s perfect revelation, as well as in the efforts made to ensure that it was held intact and passed on completely.

 

[po18guy]

Since English is a living language, new words/tenses are constantly being added, as demonstrated by the adding of new words and definitions in our dictionaries.

As more and more people take it upon themselves to interpret Paul for themselves, we could see even more denoms/definitions pop up, God save us!

How many denominations are founded mainly on Romans 3:28? How many seek out the “Romans Road” on their journey? I can think of at least one group, whose acronym rhymes with HARM. I saw some flyers on car winsheilds at a mall that specifically cited the “Romans Road” path to salvation. In essence, they reduce the rest of the NT to apocrypha, seemingly rendering those crucial books as “useful, but not necessary” to salvation.

And, just as clearly, they seem to disregard James 3, which warns that teachers will receive the more severe condemnation on the Lord’s day.

 

[Della]

I would guess that neither Acts 15 nor Galatians 2:1-2 was focused on very much at AoG. Paul consulted with the Apostles as to the content of his Gospel, as well as over the circumcision question. Not much sign of independence on Paul’s part there. Yet, Paul, for all his confidence, humbled himself by traveling to the Apostles, risking correction or even rebuke if his Gospel were flawed. His early persecution of the Church may have compelled him to ensure the correctness of the doctrines he taught. Yet, we see that the truth was paramount here, both in God’s perfect revelation, as well as in the efforts made to ensure that it was held intact and passed on completely.

Like many such sects, the AoG I remember simply ignored or glossed over verses/passages that might cast doubt on their independent thinking/assumptions. It’s one of the inherent dangers of going it on one’s own, or exalting one biblical writer over another, even negating that one writer’s words that can’t be shoe-horned into a favored theological construct. St. Paul himself warned against doing this, but the sect still plowed ahead as if they had some kind of special privilege to believe/practice Christianity however they pleased because they believed they had a mandate from God to “save the lost”, most of whom they saw as those in mainline, “spiritually dead” churches, most especially the Catholic Church.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Like many such sects, the AoG I remember simply ignored or glossed over verses/passages that might cast doubt on their independent thinking/assumptions. It’s one of the inherent dangers of going it on one’s own, or exalting one biblical writer over another, even negating that one writer’s words that can’t be shoe-horned into a favored theological construct. St. Paul himself warned against doing this, but the sect still plowed ahead** as if they had some kind of special privilege to believe/practice Christianity however they pleased because they believed they had a mandate from God to “save the lost”, **most of whom they saw as those in mainline, “spiritually dead” churches, most especially the Catholic Church.

You explained that very well, Della. In my observation the words I highlightd are typical of a human tendency which arises in the human heart, even for Catholics, but particularly finds expression within Protestantism where the individual believes that his/her private light has primacy over any organised religion (which stands for those “traditions of men”). Often the private light is founded on a Bible verse emphasised at the expense of contrary verses (eg. ordination of women founded on Gal 3:28), but then it goes beyond that to the individual just holding to a personal conviction about where God is leading him/her, with a feeble scriptural argument to support it. eg. “I’ve prayed about it and I just know in my heart that this relationship is God’s will”, for an adulterous liason. First the group sees “organised religion” as the enemy of God’s word, and then the individual sees any group or individual who contradicts them as the enemy of their private light - all the while convinced that they themselves are 110% Christian. Such people are often sincere, and keep some sort of spiritual life and Christian witness, but they are also often the “Wolves in sheeps’ clothing” who cause immense damage to themselves and others - particularly when they feel “called”, as they often do, to lead others down their own path. The next step is to arrogate to themselves the “authority” passages in the new testament, and to demand obedience from their own followers (or children)!. I’ve seen it happen!

Another favourite passage supporting private interpretation (allegedly) is Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men!”.

 

[Della]

You explained that very well, Della. In my observation the words I highlightd are typical of a human tendency which arises in the human heart, even for Catholics, but particularly finds expression within Protestantism where the individual believes that his/her private light has primacy over any organised religion (which stands for those “traditions of men”). Often the private light is founded on a Bible verse emphasised at the expense of contrary verses (eg. ordination of women founded on Gal 3:28), but then it goes beyond that to the individual just holding to a personal conviction about where God is leading him/her, with a feeble scriptural argument to support it. eg. “I’ve prayed about it and I just know in my heart that this relationship is God’s will”, for an adulterous liason. First the group sees “organised religion” as the enemy of God’s word, and then the individual sees any group or individual who contradicts them as the enemy of their private light - all the while convinced that they themselves are 110% Christian. Such people are often sincere, and keep some sort of spiritual life and Christian witness, but they are also often the “Wolves in sheeps’ clothing” who cause immense damage to themselves and others - particularly when they feel “called”, as they often do, to lead others down their own path. The next step is to arrogate to themselves the “authority” passages in the new testament, and to demand obedience from their own followers (or children)!. I’ve seen it happen!

Another favourite passage supporting private interpretation (allegedly) is Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men!”.

And this is why I don’t/could’t buy the “we follow Paul” thing. They actually don’t “follow Paul” but their own desires by quoting him out of context. There’s a reason Christ established his Church with a hiearchy–it was, in part, to prevent this very thing. Jesus knew the human heart and how we are prone to following our own devices and will excuse ourselves using whatever come to hand to do so. I think it’s why he never commanded his Apostles to write down his words but to preach them. Not that I think the NT is a bad thing–I understand why it was written and an glad we have it. But, any written document will always be a temptation to some to “go their own way” using some quote from whatever document they think gives them authority. But authority lies in duly appointed persons, not in documents. Something most don’t know or care to know, it seems.