Was Paul a protestant?

[carol_marie]

Yes, Protestants love Paul because it seems that he supports their views. My fundamentalist friend loves the Book of Revelation because she thinks it supports her views of end times. JW’s love Ezekiel & Daniel because it supports thier views of prophacy. My point - the Bible alone, taken out of context can be used to support all sorts of beliefs. That’s why all Christian denoms can say they follow the Bible but none can agree with each other. Which is why God gave us a Chruch and not just a Bible.

 

[jordan]

Angainor:

Ever wonder why Jesus would personally recruit someone who would be willing to stand toe-to-toe with Peter? Probably because that is exactly what Peter needed. Paul was a one-man House of Commons. His legacy is the Magna Carta.

Paul was no “Protestant” - he was, however, very much a Pharisee… single-minded, focused, even prideful and arrogant. Why did Our Lord hand pick such a man?

The Pharisees considered themselves the “real Jews”, and if you didn’t see things their way you were something less. Paul was a leader among this group, with the guts to put his own faith on the cutting edge persecuting the wayward upstarts.

There is no doubt that one who knew and enforced the “Law” with great vigor was the perfect choice to proclaim to Jews and Gentile alike what “Law” we should have written on our hearts.

jb

 

[michaelgazin]

Download the audio from this link:

download.rbn.com/ewtn/g2ewtn/download/odaudio/iq_2032.ra

Start listening at 34:00 and continue on from there (through commercial break)

It is a talk with Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins, and the question Scott poses is, “was Paul a Catholic?”

 

[mtr01]

jordan:

Paul was no “Protestant” - he was, however, very much a Pharisee… single-minded, focused, even prideful and arrogant. Why did Our Lord hand pick such a man?

jb

I find it interesting that all we have in Scripture is St. Paul saying that he rebuked St. Peter. There is nothing which states the results of that rebuke. In other words, we have no way of knowing whether St. Paul actually “won the debate” with St. Peter. In fact, we have no evidence that St. Peter actually corrected his “behavior” at the meal.

Since nothing else was written about this rebuke, it might very well be the case that St. Peter explained his reasons for his actions to St. Paul, and continued to behave in the same way. Point is no one knows what happened afterward, and to claim otherwise is nothing but speculation either way.

Personally, knowing what we do of St. Paul’s nature, I would think there would be some indication of his “victory” in the rebuke…but really, there is nothing.

 

[Angainor]

Jordan:

There is no doubt that one who knew and enforced the “Law” with great vigor was the perfect choice to proclaim to Jews and Gentile alike what “Law” we should have written on our hearts.

Implying, I suppose, that Protestants don’t know the Law.

Before his converstion, Paul, as a Pharasee, held the traditions of men in too high regard. After his conversion, he would not make the same mistake. When he saw that Peter was drifting in that direction, Paul called him on it. Paul was a Protestant. When Protestants perceive a clash between the Law (or the Truth) and traditions of men, there is no question on which side they align themselves with.

 

[Angainor]

mtr01:

I find it interesting that all we have in Scripture is St. Paul saying that he rebuked St. Peter.

Would somebody cite where this can be found? It has been brought up several times. It would be helpful for those of us who wish to follow along.

 

[mtr01]

Angainor:

Would somebody cite where this can be found? It has been brought up several times. It would be helpful for those of us who wish to follow along.

Gal 2:11-14

 

[Angainor]

mtr01:

I find it interesting that all we have in Scripture is St. Paul saying that he rebuked St. Peter. There is nothing which states the results of that rebuke. In other words, we have no way of knowing whether St. Paul actually “won the debate” with St. Peter.

No way of knowing??? Do Catholic boys today have to be circumcised? No? Wouldn’t that mean Paul “won”?

The debate was about following Jewish customs. Catholics today do not follow Jewish customs. Most Protestants don’t either. Some may perhaps follow some, like Seventh-Day Adventests.

Paul won.

 

[El_Catolico]

Paul is quite obviously not a Protestant. To address all the discordancies with Protestant theology and Pauline teaching would take an entire book. One such example is Galatians 2:16-18, in which Paul clearly goes agaisnt the key Protestant idea that justification is a purely forensic event. I could go on indefinitely.

 

[jordan]

Angainor:

Implying, I suppose, that Protestants don’t know the Law.

That was not implicit at all in the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that his pharisaic character seems to be why he was chosen. Once he saw the light, he was a “Pharisee for Christ.”

Does this sound “Protestant”?:

"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. (Rom 16:17,18)

“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:10-13)

“I…urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:1-6)

You have to agree that unity of faith, and the preservation of that unity was crucially important to our beloved “apostle to the gentiles.” Sounds Catholic to me.

 

[Angainor]

jordan:

You have to agree that unity of faith, and the preservation of that unity was crucially important to our beloved “apostle to the gentiles.” Sounds Catholic to me.

I agree unity is a worthy goal. I personally think Catholicism is an obstacle to that since it is Catholicism that shouts “my way or the highway” the loudest.

It is interesting you chose 1 Corinthians 1:12. NIV translates “I follow” for “I belong to” in your translation
1 Corinthians 1:12:

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”: another, "I follow Apollos’; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

“I follow Cephas.” Cephas is Peter. If Paul were around today he would most certainly add: “yet another, ‘I follow the Pope’”
1 Corinthians 1:11:

My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.

It takes two to quarrel. Catholicism is one faction that Paul is warning against.

 

[Exporter]

jazzbaby1:

I don’t think Paul was a Protestant, but I think Protestants identify more with Paul because he wasn’t Peter, KWIM? They can’t discount Peter entirely, obviously, but Peter=Papacy to many Protestants, so they focus on Paul instead. Paul fits very neatly into sola scriptura, whereas Peter more represents the tradition of the Church. Does that make sense?

---

Yes, yes. You hit the nail on the head. The fact that Peter was and is the First Pope reviles Protestants. Anything they can do to denigrate the Catholic Church will be done. Yes they want to use Paul as their standard bearer. Why. Because they hate Catholics.

 

[mtr01]

Angainor:

No way of knowing??? Do Catholic boys today have to be circumcised? No? Wouldn’t that mean Paul “won”?

No, that issue was settled at the Council of Jerusalem. Furthermore, you are confusing a doctrinal issue with one of behavior.

Angainor:

The debate was about following Jewish customs. Catholics today do not follow Jewish customs. Most Protestants don’t either. Some may perhaps follow some, like Seventh-Day Adventests…

No, the debate was whether it was proper to stop eating with Gentiles so as to not offend the Jews. It is entirely possible that Peter had a valid pastoral reason for doing so…Paul doesn’t mention Peter’s response. Therefore assuming that Paul was correct and Peter actually was in the wrong is, without specific Scriptural support, just mere conjecture.

Paul won.

What did he win? The issue you are talking about was decided before the incident:

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us:
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.

 

[mtr01]

Angainor:

I agree unity is a worthy goal. I personally think Catholicism is an obstacle to that since it is Catholicism that shouts “my way or the highway” the loudest.

It is interesting you chose 1 Corinthians 1:12. NIV translates “I follow” for “I belong to” in your translation

“I follow Cephas.” Cephas is Peter. If Paul were around today he would most certainly add: “yet another, ‘I follow the Pope’”

Not a valid comparison. As the Catholic Church is the one church Christ founded, all Christians should “follow” the pope, as he is Christ’s representative on earth…the shepherd of Christ’s earthly flock.

Angainor:

It takes two to quarrel. Catholicism is one faction that Paul is warning against.

There weren’t “two to quarrel” until the 1500’s (unless you count heretical sects that cropped up here and there, which I don’t think you want to identify yourself with). Once the Protestant Revolution occurred, then the quarreling began “I follow Luther”; “I follow Calvin”, “I follow Zwingli”, “I follow Wesley”, “I follow Pastor Smith”, “I follow Pastor Jones” etc. etc. ad nauseam.

 

[deb1]

Angainor:

I agree unity is a worthy goal. I personally think Catholicism is an obstacle to that since it is Catholicism that shouts “my way or the highway” the loudest.
.

I don’t know any Catholics, personally, who think Protestants aren’t Christians but I know plenty of Protestants that doubt Catholics are Christian. I think that some Prots. are the one that are stubborn.

 

[deb1]

Angainor:

ICatholicism is one faction that Paul is warning against.

It sounds like you are approaching the text with a preconcieved bias. I would have to have to see some scriptual proof that Paul was fighting Catholisim. Interesting though that you-as a Prots-even admit that the Catholic church existed then.

 

[trogiah]

Angainor:

I agree unity is a worthy goal. I personally think Catholicism is an obstacle to that since it is Catholicism that shouts “my way or the highway” the loudest.

I believe that unity is a profoundly important goal. Important to Jesus. Important to us all. Part of the price of unity is to accept certain symbols and historical events as dictated by God. Rome was, from a political/historical perspective, the center of the world in the year 4 BC. At least there was no other city with a better claim to being the center. It is not surprising that the Bishop of Rome would then be of some significance, even compared to other Bishops. The extent of that significance is certainly debatable.

Angainor:

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”: another, "I follow Apollos’; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

“I follow Cephas.” Cephas is Peter. If Paul were around today he would most certainly add: "yet another, ‘I follow the Pope’"It takes two to quarrel. Catholicism is one faction that Paul is warning against.

I believe you are correct, at least in some cases.

Even the most devout, traditional, cradle to grave Catholic should not give his or her most fundamental allegiance to the Pope but rather to Jesus. Let me add that Protestants should not give their fundamental allegiance to Paul but rather to Jesus. (It is curious to me how it sometimes appears that Protestants quote Paul much more often than they quote Jesus.)

Both Peter and Paul gave their allegiance to Jesus. We should do the same.

peace

-Jim

 

[Angainor]

mtr01:

There weren’t “two to quarrel” until the 1500’s

It is difficult for a pile of ashes to quarrel.

 

[mtr01]

Angainor:

It is difficult for a pile of ashes to quarrel.

Nice diversionary tactic, however, Hus never tried to establish his own Church outside of the one true Church.

 

[Angainor]

deb1:

It sounds like you are approaching the text with a preconcieved bias. I would have to have to see some scriptual proof that Paul was fighting Catholisim. Interesting though that you-as a Prots-even admit that the Catholic church existed then.

I did not mean to imply that Catholicism existed in Paul’s day. As for scriptural proof, look again to 1 Corinthians 1:12

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”: another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Cephas is Peter (the first Pope). It seems to me that what you would call Catholicism is but one of at least four divided groups. Paul is urging those groups not to quarrel. I would not say Paul was “fighting Catholicism”. He did want those who said “I follow Peter” to unite with the other groups.