St. Paul's wild style is heart of Protestantism

Posted on 04/07/2004 at 22:08:54  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Unfortunately, there seems to be more Catholics than Protestants here. I say unfortunately because I had hoped to discuss certain issues with active, educated Protestants.

Because my first post has inspired 0 Protestant replies I will aim my next question at my Catholic brethren.

Romans 10:9, "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

I agree with St. Peter, who suggests that St. Paul's teachings are difficult and confusing. While I am aware that we Catholics can site a multitude of verses that demonstrate the sound doctrine of works as a necessary part of an authentic faith, I am still often troubled when I read St. Paul's stern admonitions against pursuing righteousness through good works.

Obviously St. Paul was very concerned about demonstrating the pre-eminence of faith over works, but why did he make so many definitive statements like this, that sound as if there is no further need for discussion. Obviously he believed in the ability of ones actions to tarnish ones justification or salvation, i.e. taking communion without a pure heart, homosexuality, adultery etc...

My question is not so much a theological one regarding the the doctrine of faith alone, but one of style. I simply find St. Paul to be highly contradictory, somewhat vitriolic and often disheartening. Just when I think I understand where he is going with a topic he turns the tables and totally goes the other way. Anyone else feel this way about St. Paul? Personally, I feel like St. Paul is nearly responsible for every Protestant heresy known to man, not intentionally, but inadvertantly by way of his esoteric admonishments to the early Church.

God bless,

P.S. I hope I have not offended any disciples of our greatest evangilist. I'm just trying to get a good discussion going.

Posted on 04/07/2004 at 23:19:25  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Hi Brian!

This is a fascinating question because it really shows that we need an authority to help us interpret scripture.

I know you didn't say St. Paul's epistles caused heresy, but it was the heretic's interpretation which caused the heresy.

Marcion, founder of the hereritcal sect, the Marcionites, was completely enamoured with St. Paul and based his teachings solely on his Gospel. In fact, Marcion included all Paul's epistles in the first known compilation of books of the NT (he actually did not include two of them because he probably didn't know they existed). He also included Luke. He left out a lot of other books, notably Matthew which was adored by the Ebionites, a different heretical group who believed Christians were Jewish and must follow the Law to be saved. It's also interesting to note that the Ebionites did not care for St. Paul and thought he was wrong on many matters. We can be pretty certain they did not include his letters in their canon.


In terms of authority, the Roman Christians branded him a heretic and kicked him out of the Church and returned all the money he gave to it. Marcion then returned to Asia-Minor where his church flourished until the fifth century when Rome caught up with it and extinguished it. Bishops would warn those who traveled to be "wary when traveling, lest they enter a strange town, attend the local church on Sunday morning, and find to their dismay that they are worshipping in the midst of Marcionite heretics." (On Marcion's success, see R. Joseph Hoffman, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, p. 33).

In very early Christianity, we have these two polar extremes, the Ebionites and Marcionites. Certainly, each thought they were true to the teachings of Jesus, and each had documents, of which we included some of each in our own NT, to prove their point.

But, Paul doesn't have a monopoly on teachings in the Bible. The following information is paraphrased from "Lost Christianities: the battles for Scripture and Faiths we Never Knew" by Bart Ehrman.

The alternative to Paul is Matthew. It is usually the most "Jewish" of the Gospels in the NT. To Matthew, (and of course Paul) Jesus came in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures but Matthew insists, contrary to Paul, that Jesus' followers must do so as well. In one of the most trenchant statements of the Gospel, found only in this Gosepl in the New Testament, Jesus is recorded as saying:

quote:

---

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-20)

---

For Matthew, the entire Jewish Law needs to be kept. The Pharisees are blamed not for keeping the law but for not keeping it well enough.

Also, in this Gospel, when a rich man comes up to Jesus and asks him how to have eternal life, Jesus tells him that if he wants to live eternally he must keep the commandments of the Law (19:17).

What if this person approached Paul twenty years laters? Would he have told him to keep the Law? His own writings give a clear answer: decidedly not (Rom. 3:10; Gal. 2:15-16).

Posted on 04/08/2004 at 04:41:47  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Hey Brian!

Yes, I know what you mean about St. Paul. I know when I debate my IFB family they tend to use St. Paul exclusively. Never mind if what they are using seems to contradict what Jesus taught.

I think the main problem is that most people do not look at the writings contextually, but use a fundamentalist approach. Meaning that they take things at face value without bothering to see just what the religious truth being taught is.

Prime example: Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith...not from works, so no one may boast." Of course the main focus tends to be the word faith and not from works.
However, if you read the entire chapter of Eph. 2 in its context, you will see that St. Paul is telling us that we are saved by grace. Furthermore, if one reads the entire letter of Eph. it is clear that St. Paul is telling us to do works unto the Lord.

Another good example: Eph. 5:22 "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." This verse has been used quite often for men to treat their wives as second class citizen or slaves. However, if this verse is read in the context it means that wives should place themselves under their husband's mission. And what is their husband's mission? To love his wife as Christ loves the church. Christ came to serve and not be served. So much for making the wife a slave.

Posted on 04/08/2004 at 10:51:06  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

I agree, excellent observation. My whole experience as a Protestant I was inundated with Paul, Paul, Paul. One person I once talked to belonged to a Baptist sect that actually believed that the Gospels, the Old Testament, and James were 'not for this dispensation'! They were extreme - but a church I attended made no bones about it that the New Testament church is to follow primarily Paul, as Jesus taught before the resurrection!

Anyway, Brian, to your concern of why Paul brought this issue up so consistently. I believe the interpretive key to understanding Paul is to carefully note the context of his statements. What was the heresy he was refuting in these passages? Judaizers. He was making the opposite case of those who said Christians had to keep the ceremomnial laws and rituals. He was never attempting to speak against the moral law - which he makes very clear in many passages that are conveniently not quoted.

Evangelicals have a blind spot to this, and so they will defend vigorously against any notion of keeping the moral law, or obedience done in faith as necessary for justification. - They don't have room for it in their theology, so it gets taken as 'works + faith = salvation'. As I told someone on another board, I see the Catholic formula as more like this:

GRACE --> FAITH --> WORKS (in Christ) = Justification --> SALVATION

God, through His unmerited favor (grace) grants us the gift of faith, which we accept, and prove it through obedience done in love (works done in Christ) which justifies us before God. (Rom 4:5; Jms 2:24) which leads to our salvation (being made conformable to His death, that we might share in His resurrection Plp 3:10-11)

'...faith working through love.' Gal 5:6

Posted on 04/08/2004 at 22:20:24  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Very nice Allen. Thanks all for your replies.

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 15:54:41  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Personally, I love Paul's writings, but I totally agree that the circumstances prompting each letter are as important as the words in the letters themselves. I find most confusion comes out of not taking those circumstances into account, and thus taking the messages completely out of context.

That said, there are common themes that run through all of his letters because they are universal: we are sons of God, we are dead to sin, we are saved by grace, through faith, "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9, with no category given to the works, in a letter NOT written to Judaizers, but rather to Gentiles as stated in Ephesians 2:11!)

Of course, I have to offer a different equation:

PREDESTINED --> CALLED --> JUSTIFIED --> GLORIFIED

...straight out of Romans 8:30. No works mentioned.

Blessings,
Diana

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 15:58:47  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

You're getting confused with Law and Works. Paul is talking about Law (i.e. circumcision), not about following the commandments of Christ (i.e. love neighbor as yourself).

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 16:07:01  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

He's writing to Gentiles about Law? What do Gentiles in Ephesus know about Law? Why would he write to them about something that they don't know, especially if his point is that it is not something they need to be concerned about?

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 16:18:58  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Christian works are never meritorious in the sense that we can say to God: 'See, I have earned my wage, now You owe me!' Wage-earning merit, whether of the Judaizing kind or of the self-righteous Gentile variety are unacceptable.

But following God's moral laws in the grace of Christ are necessary for justification. - ie, 'works done in faith'.

Protestant theology attempts to dissect this concept into an intellectual faith 'alone' that saves, and then works come afterwards.

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 16:27:20  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

I think part of the problem with the Pauline letters as to say Peter is that with Peter there are only 2, so we hardly have to ability to see how he worked in other areas. Payul on the other hand with his abundance of writing, each of which we must remember were directed at a specific church, address problems stemming from that church. Those problems problems specific to that church weren't a problem at other churches.

For example with Corinthians, they were split into 2 groups due to speaking in tongues (only one of the issues of that letter) having some people trying to practice it in the form of babble, like one would practice putting, while the other group believed it was a gift from God.

Paul admonishes the putters acknowedging that it is a Gift from God, not something man made. All the Apostles (actually 120 people the first time) were given it and at that very moment which it hit them those whose language they spoke in understood them immediately, no practice.

However you don't see that issue directed at the Ephesians, they didn't have that problem. Nor at any of the other churches, they each had their individual problems that each letter was directed towards. His themes though overlap in all instances.

MadeAs1 I think brought out very well that there are common themes of Paul which are the heart of his ministry.

When I see him speaking against works in Ephesians and then for works in another letter it seems that he was addressing the problem, that many protestants point out about works, and which shouldn't really be disregarded, that there were people in that church who didn't understand his message and were trying to buy their way into heaven. True works can't proceed without real faith. Some Ephesians were boasting about what they had done, as though they had bought their way into heaven. An "I'm better than you" type of thing "See what I did". They weren't understanding what true service was as Christ taught, Christ's service was humble, not boastful. Paul was right to admonish them in that circumstance.

But you don't see that problem cropping up in other churches. Different problems, different churches, that he was teaching to be all as one.

Hoever you can see when you don't look at the themes and concentrate on the particular circumstance how people can pick and choose. Man made the divisions we see, not Paul.

Edited by Nicene on 04/13/2004 16:36:28

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 16:35:48  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

quote:

---

Originally posted by MadeAs1

He's writing to Gentiles about Law? What do Gentiles in Ephesus know about Law? Why would he write to them about something that they don't know, especially if his point is that it is not something they need to be concerned about?

---

They know everything! Gentiles knew that the God they are worshipping is the Jewish God. They knew that the Jewish God demanded the Jewish people to show their faithfulness through His Law - such as removing the extra flesh from the penis. Gentiles who wanted to be Christian in the Apostolic times wondered how they could be Christian and worship this Jewish God. Imagine what grown Gentile men thought about that! There were those who were teaching them that to be Christian, one must follow the Law (see Galatians). Paul was furious with these 'Judaizing' opponents and wrote the letters to his churches to rebuke them for listening to these 'false teachers' (read Galatians). It would be very interesting to see what these 'false teachers' would have written back. We have no record of it - only Paul's point of view. Paul was correct of course, just to be clear. Everyone knew who the Jews were and who they worshipped. Whether one should convert to Judaism to be come a Christian was a major question in early Christianity and makes up the bulk of Paul's letters.

We do have a record, though, of 'Jewish' Christians who did not accept Paul's letters because of his rejection of the Law - read about the Ebionites - they probably loved Matthew, though.

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 16:51:43  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Hmmm... I confess you all are much more certain than I about the Ephesians.

I'm curious: what are your sources for claims that they were self-righteous Gentiles trying to buy their salvation?

I view Ephesians rather as a letter written to former heathens to reinforce the concept that they are now sons of God -- every bit as much so as anyone who may come to visit them -- and as such, should lay aside the habits of their former worship (which was based on works, not of the Law, but of impure behavior).

Edited by Diana Holberg on 04/13/2004 17:16:29

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 16:58:01  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin
There were those who were teaching them that to be Christian, one must follow the Law (see Galatians).

---

My mistake... I thought we were discussing the Ephesians...

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 17:01:35  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Hi MadeAs1,

Please don't bunch the others in with me, that wouldn't be fair to them.

There were many issues for each church, I pulled one example. I extrapolate that part for myself, from reading his other letters to the other churches. Why write that, in other words, just to the Ephesians? Or Why write about tongues only to the Corinthians? He must have had a reason for his letter regarding those issues, therefore they stemmed from some problem in that particular church at the time of the letter to that church.

Corinth also had a problem with sexual immorality, one set of relatives married to each other, it isn't addressed to the other churches, so it was a completely Corinthian problem.

For myself (not the other catholics on this board, or in the church) I try to reconsile what Paul is saying and why in different letters. Personally I look at his audience and try to see why the message seems to be different.

Edited by Nicene on 04/13/2004 17:14:58

Posted on 04/13/2004 at 18:12:31  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

quote:

---

Originally posted by MadeAs1

Hmmm... I confess you all are much more certain than I about the Ephesians.

I'm curious: what are your sources for claims that they were self-righteous Gentiles trying to buy their salvation?

---

I never made that claim. My understanding of Ephesians 2:8,9 though is that it has to do with (meritorious) works of any variety - Paul often has Jewish works of the Law specifically in mind in many of the 'works' passages.

Eph 2:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—
9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


I can't help but notice that in the very same breath in which Paul addresses meritiorious works, he makes the point of the necessity of works done in faith.

What I commonly perceive from Protestant sources is that they lump all 'works' together and use these verses as if Paul somehow opposed or viewed following the moral law as contrary to or not necessary as a part of saving faith.

quote:

---

I view Ephesians rather as a letter written to former heathens to reinforce the concept that they are now sons of God -- every bit as much so as anyone who may come to visit them -- and as such, should lay aside the habits of their former worship (which was based on works, not of the Law, but of impure behavior).

---

I think Astralis is right when he says that they were familiar with Jewish concepts as well. Paul makes this clear as he goes on to say:

Eph 2:
11 ¶ Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—
12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ.
14 ¶ For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility,
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.
17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;
18 for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

Posted on 04/15/2004 at 14:36:34  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

MadeAs1,

My argument about the Galatians can be repeated with the Ephesians. Paul was extremely controversial among early Christians, and the Bible even tells us, through Peter, that his teachings are hard to understand. The problem with translating Paul comes through Sola-Scriptura where Tradition is not considered. For the orthodox Church (small 'o') Paul does not contradict Christian Tradition through his seemingly faith-only teachings.

I've been reading Lost Christianities: The battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew by Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press). This post paraphrases his material.

False understandings of Paul's teachings are important because they happen all the time in the Bible. And they happen mostly in the churches that Paul started. In most of these cases, we learn that the 'false teachers' of Paul's churches are winning the argument, therefore Paul finds it necessary to intervene and reverse the trend. I already discussed the example in Galatians. In his letters to the Corinthians, Paul is confronted again by Christians, from within his own church, who believe they have already experienced the full benefits of salvation and are ralready ruling with Christ as superspiritual humans (sounds almost Gnostic and like Evangelists and Fundamentalists of today). Paul confronted some of his opponents face-to-face in Corinth and apparently experienced a public humiliation, suggesting that he may have lost the argument (2 Cor. 2:5-11, 13:2). He threatens another visit in which, he promises, things will be different.

His letter to the Romans (a church he did not found), is written to convince them that his gospel message is legitimate, so they will support him in his missionary endeavors further to the west, in Spain (Rom. 1:8-15, 15:22-24). But why does he need to convince them? Probably because they suspected him of teaching a false gospel; someone else must have told them so.

Later letters written in Paul's name presuppose internal tensions in his later churches:

(a) some kind of strange Jewish mysticism affectin gthe Christians of Colossae (Col. 2:8-23).
(b) a kind of fervent millenarianism in 2 Thessalonians, where people have quit their jobs expecting the end to come right away (2 Thess. 2:1-12, 3:6-15).
(c) some kind of proto-Gnosticism in 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3-7).

These problems with Paul's teachings appear in other non-Pauline books as well. James strongly opposes Christians who have taken Paul's doctrine of justification by faith to mean that good deeds are irrelevant for salvation. A book that modern Fundamentalists are not fond of (nor was Martin Luther). This should be a red flag.

In light of the wide diversity of early Christian beliefs, it isn't odd to see that the letters that were written were used to correct people's interpretations and help fill the divide between Judaizing non-Judaizing Christians (see below).

If the early Christians had problems with Paul, then it wouldn't be odd to think that those who follow Sola Scriptura have it all wrong like some of these early Christians did.

For example, those who hold to sola scritura have a hard time with the following and have to go through scriptural gymnastics like they do with James:

There are inconsistencies in Acts that are at odds with Paul's activities, the nature of his proclamation, and the overall portrayal of his character.

For example:
1) Did Paul consult with the Apostles before going on the mission in the diaspora?
a. Acts says yes (Acts 9:26ff.)
b. Paul emphatically says no (Gal. 1:17)

2. What did Paul think about pagans who worship idols?
a. Are they guilty before God for violating what they iknow to be true about him? (Romans 1:18-32)
b. Or are they innocent before God beca