"Paul's reign [is] drawing to a close. Jesus, on the contrary, lives more than ever." (Renan, Saint Paul (1875))
"Paul's reign [is] drawing to a close. Jesus, on the contrary, lives more than ever." (Renan, Saint Paul (1875))
|
Search
|
|
Questions?
Click Here to Send Us an Email.
|
|
Recommendations
Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy) What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics None above affiliated with me |
Books:
Here are various defenders that Paul's Gospel of Grace supplants Jesus's Gospel of Salvation, and justifies ignoring Jesus's words or regarding words in Matthew attributed to Jesus as inauthentic.
In this YouTube video with the title Christian Prayer, How to Pray to God, Richard Jordan defends that nothing Jesus taught applies to us. Only what Paul taught, first recorded in Acts and continued in the Epistles, applies to us today.
I found this video on April 27, 2016 simply by accident. I was trying to learn how to pray better. I chose this video with no purpose to find yet another extraordinary and shocking example of Paulinism.
Richard Jordan beginning at 4:57 minutes into the video says most Churches teach things that "have nothing to do with the dispensation of grace" that applies today -- most teach Jesus' words in his earthly ministry when Jordan says this an error, for those words of Jesus supposedly have no validity for today; only Paul's word are valid today.
Jordan says
"when you go back to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, ....where He is proclaiming what He calls the Gospel of the Kingdom....Jesus then dies, is crucified and resurrected, and then the Holy Spirit comes in the Book of Acts. [6:01] When you go back into these books back here [underscoring with chalk on a board the 4 gospels], and you try to go back there and get your prayer promises, and your prayer instructions, you're gonna have a problem ...because the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where Christ is preaching the kingdom has nothing to do...those are instructions that have nothing to do with what God is doing today in the dispensation of the grace of God....If you relax a minute, and don't blow a gasket, just take a minute and relax, take a deep breath, ...I know what I am saying to some people is shocking. Is jarring. But I just challenge you. ...Look at Romans 15 verse 8, "Now I say Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision." So here is back in his ministry in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and he [Paul] says He is a minister of the circumcision"...'to confirm the truth of God to confirm the promises to the fathers.' These are promises God made to the nation of Israel. And Jesus came in his earthly ministry to do what? He came to confirm those promises. ... You see the message that Jesus Christ is preaching about this coming over here [i.e., a later point in a time line] setting up a kingdom delivering the nation of Israel from the wrath of God in the tribulation period.... In Matthew 4:23 ...Jesus is preaching the gospel of the kingdom. What you have back here in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is you have a Jewish Messiah preaching a Jewish message to the nation of Israel about the kingdom that is coming....He is Israel's Messiah. He has come as the minister of Israel. And he is preaching about Israel's coming kingdom....Jesus told his disciples that He was sent to the Lost Sheep of Israel....It doesn't mean God does not care about the Gentiles. It just meant the salvation of God would go through Israel down here to the Gentiles. The blessing of God is going to go to the Gentiles out here [i.e., the time when we are in the tribulation with the Anti-Christ]. In order for Gentiles to get it, Israel has to be converted. "All Israel will be saved," as it is written [by Paul]. That's what prophecy is about. That is what the kingdom program is about. [10:38] The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are about that issue....
The message you hear today, of most churches, most preaching you hear today is really the kingdom Gospel, the kingdom commission, the kingdom signs, the kingdom laws, the kingdom principles, and the kingdom promises. And when you go back here and try to take those Jewish kingdom promises, and put them on us today.. where Christ in heaven has been revealed through Apostle Paul -- a new ministry -- for the church, the body of Christ -- this was kept a secret [11:20] -- these people [i.e., pointing to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] did not know about it back here. He doesn't reveal it until you come to the ministry of Paul. The body of Christ where there is no Jew or Gentile...but were one in Christ. When you get over here [i.e., Paul's ministry] and you go back there [i.e., Jesus' earthly ministry] and take that information [i.e,. Jesus' teachings] and put it over here, well that's when you must be rightly dividing the word of truth. If you don't make that distinction that God makes, you are going to end up with heartache and ruin. You're going to try to talk to God on a basis that He is not talking to you. ...You gotta get in your book, and rightly divide your book, so you can see what God is doing today. And the dispensation of Grace is found in the books of Romans to Philemon. That's where we are today in the dispensation of grace....If you claim promises back over here [i.e., Jesus' earthly ministry], they are going to just be a burden. [13:01]
In 1001 Bible Questions Answered, two evangelical scholars -- Pettingill and Torrey -- write that Jesus's Gospel is not to be taught until the tribulation; for now we are only to teach what Paul taught -- a gospel of grace.
We are convinced that this [i.e., the belief that the church was commissioned to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom] is in error. It would be a strange thing to find the Church's commission in the Kingdom Gospel. (William Pettingill and R.A. Torrey, 1001 Bible Questions Answered (Inspirational Press, 1997) at 120.)
They continue:
I have long been convinced, and have taught that the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 is primarily applicable to the kingdom rather than to the Church. If this were kept in mind we should not fall into confusion regarding our marching orders, which are found in Acts 1:8, with details in the Epistles to the Churches. The Matthew commission [i.e., the command to preach Jesus's commands] will come into force for the Jewish Remnant after the Church is caught away. (Id., 1001 Bible Questions Answered, at 127.)
But it gets worse:
Mark's Gospel, like Matthew's and Luke's is primarily a kingdom book, and I am satisfied that none of them contains the Church's marching orders -- not even the so-called Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20....To be sure, we are to preach the gospel to every creature but what Gospel? The only gospel known to the synoptics was the gospel of the kingdom. Our gospel of the kingdom [i.e., the one that he thinks matches Paul] is found among the four evangelists only in John. (Id., 1001 Bible Questions Answered, at 113.)
They mean John supposedly speaks of Paul's faith-alone gospel in a few verses, and those apply today, but all the faith-plus-works and follow-the-Law teachings of Jesus are supposedly effective only in the future during the tribulation.
Incidentally, their reading of John's gospel toward this end depends upon the modern mistranslation of pisteousin by Luther and our English translators. It was partly innocent because scholars had not found out yet in the 1500s that the Greek Septuagint of 257 BC rendered 'obeying' by the verb pisteuo. Hence, the Septuagint Greek Bible was only dissected in the modern age, and it now allows us to unlock pisteousin (the present participle active form of pisteuo). This important change has been resisted due to centuries of dogma based upon its inadvertent mistranslation by Luther in 1522. For discussion, see our webpage on the erroneous translation of John 3:16.
In the Reformation, Zwingli believed Paul's epistles supplanted any need to focus on the words of Christ. "Zwingli's copy of the NT was confined to Paul's Epistles and Hebrews." (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 1 sec. 51.)
Ed Parish Sanders is a New Testament scholar renown as "the principal proponents of the New Perspective on Paul." ("E.P. Sanders," Wikipedia.) His perspective places Paul as dealing with contemporary issues of Judaism, and whether its customs and laws made one superior versus Hellenistic customs and laws. Paul supposedly said the law did not have this effect, and Jews were not superior to Gentiles for obeying their Torah.
In 1985, Sanders wrote that the Jesus of Matthew 23 who excoriates the Pharisees for not following the Law enough cannot possibly be the "historical" Jesus, i.e., these are not truly Jesus' words. Why? Obviously because they conflict with Paul's views of the Pharisees as legalists (when Jesus says they are not, but too lax. See Matt. 23:23). Here are Sanders' words:
As I argued in the preceding chapter, the Jesus of Matt. 23:5-7, 23-26 is not the historical Jesus. He is one who objects to the Pharisees because they are not righteous enough, and he favors a higher righteousness according to the law, while not denying any of the law, even its minutiae (see also Matt. 5:17-20, 43-8, 6:1-8, 16-18). Further, the charges of Matt. 23 are related to the use of tax collector to mean 'outsider,' which I take not to be an authentic saying of Jesus....We can be certain that Jesus did not use 'tax collector' as it is used in Matt. 5:46, and this counts against the authenticity of the passage on the hypocrites. [Matt.](6:1-4, 5-8, 16-18), and consequently against the authenticity of the charges against the Pharisees in Matt. 23. (E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Foretress Press: 1985) at 277.)
Hence, Sanders simply eliminates any emphasis by Jesus upon righteousness from the Law because it does not fit Paul's view that the Pharisees were strict in obeying the Law. However, as we demonstrate elsewhere, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus both record the Pharisees were lax on the Law, while esteeming their own traditions not found in the Law. Jesus was right they were lax; Paul was wrong that they were strict adherents to the Law. See our chapter nine from JWOS.
What Sanders overlooks, but implicitly negates, is that Luke has Jesus give a virtually identical message to Matthew 5:17-19 on the Law never being abolished until all generations cease in Luke 16.
Carl Stange wrote an influential article in 1924 entitled "Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt," in Zeitschrieft fur Systematische Theologie at 58. The Paulinizing aspects of this are summarized in an article entitled "Carl Stange, Lutheran Paulinizing of Jesus's Message." It can be found in Clarence Bauman's book, The Sermon on the Mount: Its Modern Quest for Meaning at 177. [Google books displays a different title, but this is a typo.]
One of the quotes Bauman cites from Stange is:
"Fellowship with God is not achieved through ethical performance. From an ethical standpoint, it is a derogation of the idea of the good to seek its realization by imitating Jesus. The teaching about the ideal.... only serves to make plain the reprehensibility of the human condition... The meaning of the moral demand is not that it gives us the power for the good but rather that it shows us our impotence for the good." Id., at 177, quoting Stange, Zur Ethik, at 59.
Stange is thus deliberately saying Jesus is not an example to imitate. Such effort would supposedly "derogate" the very notion of what it means to be good. And any of Jesus's commands to be good were not intended to incite obedience, but rather the realization of our weakness that we can ever truly obey God. This is solely derived from Paul being superimposed on Jesus's words.
Professor Bauman aptly summarizes the message of Stange:
"Stange’s central axiom is derived not from Jesus but from Paul and reflects not the content of the Sermon on the Mount but the influence of Reformation dogma."
"Stange made claims about the Sermon on the Mount which its content does not validate. He read into it theories and experiences foreign to its sphere. Stange’s misinterpretation of the Sermon on the Mount exemplifies the characteristically Lutheran hermeneutical incongruity of superimposing upon the teaching of Jesus the theology of Paul." (Baumann, id., at 185.)
Dr. Dubose taught at the University of the South whose review was the Sewanee Review. Dubose was in the Theology Department. Dubose in effect, in conjunction with this 'review,' taught Jesus did not truly speak with inspiration until the messages He gave Paul when resurrected because Jesus only then supposedly for the first time spoke with true inspiration.
First, let's begin with the book review entitled “Dr. Dubose's Gospel in the Gospels,” Sewanee Review (University of the South: 1907) at 113. It explains Paul with “extreme rarity” mentions any words from Jesus. This makes Paul’s doctrine comprise a “fifth gospel” which has virtually nothing in common with the four gospels. Instead, “the Gospel, as [Paul] understands it, is not the teaching of Jesus while on earth, nor even His life on earth, but the work and the Person of the Risen Christ...The Risen Christ is St. Paul’s Gospel.” Id., at 113. And thus, only the Risen Christ gives us the true gospel, and this Dubose claims, is "best stated by Apostle Paul." Id. See also William Porcher Dubose, The Gospel in the Gospels (1906) at books.google.com.
What does Dubose mean and the Sewannee Review which is the journal at the school DuBose teaches? They mean that Jesus' words on earth (rather than after Resurrection when Jesus supposedly communicates with Paul) are not as authoritative or inspired as when relayed through Paul when Jesus is now Resurrected.
First, Dubose asks whether Jesus taught on earth from wisdom or instead from divine inspiration. Id. at 75. Then Dubose answers that it is obvious Jesus spoke with human wisdom, but then deflects our concern by saying it was no less true than inspired truth:
On the other side, whatever its ultimate source, it does not come to us out of the mouth of Jesus with the immediate or unmediated force of an utterance from heaven. Jesus Christ speaks to us simply in the capacity and with the authority of the inherent and essential truth of the things He says. I speak that I do know, and testify that I have seen, — that is all the authority He will give us. No matter whence or how the truth, the authority of the truth is that it is the truth. Of course our Lord does say always, My truth is not mine but His that sent me, — but what authority had He for saying that, or what proof could He give of it? At the last the only authority lay in the fact of its being the truth, and all the proof simply in the power of the truth to prove itself. I repeat, then, that the immediate capacity in which Jesus Christ taught was that of the truth which He taught. That was the truth, whether divine or human or both, but the whole actual truth of humanity, of human existence, human life, human destiny. He was Himself that truth — incarnate, personal, consummated. And He was not only the truth consummated, but the consummation or consummating of the truth; not only the truth and life of humanity, but the process or way by which humanity comes to the knowledge of its truth and attains to the living of its life.
The truth for which Jesus Christ stands is distinctly and definitely the truth of man, of human life. And when He says of it, I speak that I do know and testify that I have seen, He means that what He says of it is matter of His own personal human experience. He has Himself been through the whole of human experience, and is competent to testify as a witness to all that is in it. He knew what was in man, because He was Himself all of man. The fact that from the first opening of His mouth as a teacher Jesus speaks with the authority of perfect truth does not contradict the fact that He had humanly learned the truth. Id., at 75-76.
While the Sewanee Review is proudly defending that Paul alone came with the inspired truth which the Resurrected Jesus alone attained, Bonhoeffer has the better view: such a view represents a Christianity without Christ! Jesus becomes a sacrificed figurehead without any relevant personal message. This embarrassing family secret among Christians has leaked out to non-Christians, causing discredit on Jesus until we Christians rectify this error.
Here is an example of Paulinism to rebut my book, Jesus' Words Only, posted as a review at books.google.com:
The author [of Jesus' Words Only] needs to learn to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). He also needs to learn the difference between Mystery (Body of Christ) and Prophecy (Isreal). Paul's gospel is the only gospel that saves today. After the rapture of the church, Israel's New Testament law comes back into effect.
The commands given to Israel are not the same as the commands given to the Body of Christ. The Jewish Church (Israel) is to inherit the earth, the Gentile Church (Body of Christ) are to inherit the heavenly places. The calling between Israel and the Body of Christ are different callings, with different commands, both reconciled to God by one cross and one saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Ernst von Bunsen's The Hidden Wisdom of Christ and the Key of Knowledge (Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green, 1865) Vol. 2, the author claims that Matthew wrote down the public sayings of Jesus, omitting the secret and more perfect teachings of Jesus which Paul first preached.
[296] The Gospel of Matthew was the first ever written, and contained principally, if not exclusively, those public sayings of Christ which the Apostles agreed to publish in Hebrew and for the Hebrews of Palestine. It did not contain any of those of the Lord's sayings which he had secretly confided to his disciples. As far as it referred to Christ's sayings, or in its doctrinal part, it must have been essentially identical with the Gospel of the Hebrews, which even in the fourth century was called, according to a Father of the Church, 'the authentic Gospel of Matthew.' ****
[297] the more perfect, because more complete, Hidden Gospel of Christ, as first openly proclaimed by Paul.
[299] the Great Apostle's doctrine [proved to be] the secret doctrine of Christ.
At the website doctrine.org operated by Don Samdahl, you find one of the most erudite Paulinist websites on the internet. Samdahl presumably wrote each article. Samdahl avowedly and unabashedly treats Paul as having the right to a sole emphasis over any lessons passed on by the 12 apostles, as we will quote momentarily. This website is thus useful to properly understand what Paul truly teaches without any forced gloss to try to make Paul sound more consistent with Jesus' teachings in the gospels. Hence, you can see Paul vs. Jesus' contradictions in an unvarnished way by reading this website. Yet the author is generally properly construing Paul's meaning, sharing with us along the way the true Greek. But the author's hermeneutic has the obvious flaw that he is ignoring that such contradiction of Jesus's teachings to the 12 is fatal to Paul's validity. And the author hastily assumes that Paul met the true Christ when the wilderness experience of Paul fits precisely the warning by Jesus of an imposter-Jesus in the wilderness in Matthew 24:5-6, 24-27 (see our link). Regardless, here is a paragraph where the article "Follow Paul" says Paul taught Jesus' "secrets," and then the author explains we must solely follow Paul because Paul solely has the gospel of the true risen Jesus, not the pre-ascension Jesus:
Paul commanded believers to imitate him. We have seen that while personal behavior was sometimes in view, (2 Thessalonians 3.7, 9) Paul’s primary concern was that believers follow the doctrine they had received from him. Paul had received his doctrine from the risen, glorified Lord. Paul called these doctrines “mysteries” or “secrets.” Paul used this term because the teachings the Lord gave him were secrets, i.e., doctrines the Lord had not revealed to anyone before. The ascended Lord saved Paul to become a prototype for a new creation, namely, the Church, the body of Christ. As believers today, to imitate Paul means to recognize and obey the truths Paul revealed. Such obedience is essential to the process Christians call sanctification. Apart from it, the believer in Christ cannot mature spiritually and conform to the image of His Son (Romans 8.29). Only by obeying the doctrines the glorified Lord revealed to Paul can we grow into the person Christ has destined us to be.
Samdahl differentiates that the 12 apostles taught the "gospel of the kingdom" but Paul taught the "gospel of grace." (See footnote 3 on his webpage.)
This differentiation typically implies the author understands Jesus supposedly preached a gospel for a kingdom that was offered, but supposedly rejected by Jews, and then having failed to be accepted, Jesus after his Ascension allegedly went to a Plan B -- Paul's gospel of grace. Then Paulinists teach this Plan B was supposedly accepted in great numbers, saving Christianity from its extinction. This, however, is mythology which Paulinists promote contrary to the history that proves the apostolic church, not Paul's church, was the successful center of Christianity even in Gentile lands. This remained true until under Emperor Constantine of Rome in the 300s gave Paul's doctrines ascendancy. This was because Constantine desired to abolish Sabbath and move observance of a weekly rest to the day to worship the Sun-God Sol Invictus on Sunday. This required Constantine's prelates to give emphasis to Paul who in 2 passages "abolished Sabbath," as scholars put it. This was the first time Christianity made Paul a major figure to follow -- almost 300 years after Christ! See our discussion link.
In a Messianic page debate, Linda says she believes in Yeshua and obeys the Torah/Law. Vince G. tells her that she is lost based upon Paul's doctrine of grace. Listen to Vince G on 12/29/2009 rebuff this obedient follower of Jesus/Yeshua. Vince even brushes aside valid quotes from Rev. 14:12 to insist Linda is lost:
[Vince] You're wrong. DEAD wrong. You are, in fact, a false teacher by that
statement.
[Vince] Those words mean nothing apart from what you mean by them. If you mean
"I am saved by faith, but REAL faith means I keep the Law" you are lost
> [Linda] Trust and obey.
[Vince] If you mean what I think you do by that, you have mixed law and
grace/works and faith, and are on your way to hell with other messianics
> [Linda] Rev.14:12 :Here is the patience of the Saints: here are they that
> keep the Commandments of God, and the faith of Yeshua
[Vince] There you go: "Faith PLUS keeping the law gets me into heaven" I am afraid your words indicate you have no more salvation than the judaisers who also believed Christ was messiah, and they should keep the law.
My Comment: It unfortunately is Vince who will have to answer for why Vince rejected Jesus' words in favor of Paul's doctrine of grace. Vince teaches based upon Paul's doctrine of grace that disobedience to the Law (a) does not matter for salvation and (b) is preferred over any effort to obey because by trying to obey and be righteous - "heaven maimed or hell whole" as Jesus taught (Mark 9:42-47) -- supposedly results in "hell maimed" (repenters from sin who do so for salvation sake supposedly go to hell). Vince believes you obtain "heaven whole" --- unrepentant from sin solely because you believe in Jesus's resurrection per what Paul teaches in Romans 10:8 as the guarantee of heaven.
What Vince is saying is so incongruous with Jesus that I believe if Vince truly just spelled out his thoughts, compared them to Jesus' words such as in Mark 9:42-47 or the words of Rev. 14:12, Vince would see things differently. He would realize it is himself, and not the messianic he is rebuffing, who will suffer hell if he stays on his current path without repentance from sin as measured in God's Law which Jesus says continues. See Matt. 5:17-19.
In an article 'What would Jesus Do?' at Grace Alive Ministries (non-profit from Pennsylvania), it proves Paul and Jesus had different messages on the Law in three areas. So then he admits they have different directions, and says as a result, the only commands to follow are the commands of the Ascended Christ funnelled through Paul. What is interesting is how he admits that the last thing Jesus did was clearly expand that His commands should go to the nations:
At the end of Christ’s earthly ministry the audience was expanded to the nations of the earth. However, the message still focused on “the promises made unto the fathers,” the establishment of the earthly kingdom. Those nations were also to observe the Law of Moses, “all things whatsoever I [Christ] have commanded you.”
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19,20
But then when the author tries to separate the need of the 12 to teach even the NATIONS everything 'I commanded,' the author abandons this recognition, and ignores it. He claims Jesus' ministry is solely to Jews, and thus Paul's ministry is the only one to follow. To avoid any accusation that I am taking anything out of context, here is this outrageous claim to ignore the teachings of Jesus, and only listen to Paul (who in his epistles never directly quotes Jesus but the liturgy):
The ministry of Paul is in contrast to the principles of the earthly ministry of Christ. Paul’s epistles establish the context of his ministry.
Unlike the earthly ministry of Christ that excluded the Gentiles, the ministry of Paul specifically targeted the Gentiles.
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:9
Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. Romans 11:13
In another contrast to Christ’s earthly ministry Paul dealt with “mystery” information rather than promises previously made by the prophets.
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:25,26
Rather than encourage people to keep the Law of Moses, Paul urged people not to be subject to the bondage of the law.
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:1-
What Paul would do is very different from what Jesus would do. In the three areas of Christ’s earthly ministry discussed, Paul did the exact opposite. Who then should we follow? Should we ask, “What would Jesus do?” or, “What would Paul do?” This is the Bible’s answer to that question. [NOTE: This is not the Bible, but Paul speaking -- the fallacy in his argument.]
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I [Paul] have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. I Corinthians 4:15-
Be ye followers of me, even as I [Paul] also am of Christ. I Corinthians 11:1
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I [Paul] write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. I Corinthians 14:3
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. I Timothy 1:15,16
The pattern for believers in the Age of Grace is Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Paul followed the ascended Christ. He gave the pattern for following that same heavenly Christ. We do not follow the earthly Christ; we follow Paul as he followed the heavenly Christ.
To this, I can only say UGGH!
In a March 2011 article entitled "What Would Paul Do?" Jared says Jesus' did things we cannot because Jesus was God. The healings, walking on water, etc. 'So isn't it better to turn to Paul?' he effectively asks. I know this is not a serious scholar, but still Jared claims he is a Grace University graduate and Worship Pastor at Redeemer Church in Omaha. So here are his words:
I was thinking about WWJD bracelets today (don't ask me how I got there) and I suddenly realized that, in so many instances, that question is irrelevant, verging on incoherent. Almost like asking, "What would my iPad do?" Jesus, while human, was (and is) also God and that makes the position from which he did and said everything completely other.
****
So I was thinking—as heretical as this sounds—that a better question to ask yourself as a Christian is simply "What would Paul do?"
Hold on, before you pick up stones to stone me. Paul himself wrote "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). Throughout his teaching, Paul seemed to have an uncanny grasp of how the Gospel impacted our everyday life. It speaks into our marriages, our employment, our relationships. The list goes on and on.
So perhaps "WWPD?" is too near-heretical to be beneficial for most Christians. But I would suggest that there are better alternatives to WWJD that actually have biblically grounded answers we can directly apply to our lives.
So WWPD is a "better alternative to WWJD...." There it is again ... abandoning Christ, preferring Paul.
On the Millard Community Church website is "What Would Jesus Do?" which claims it is blasphemy to ask 'what would Jesus do?' to measure the moral decision-making we need to resolve. I kid you not! Even Paul said "put on the mind of Christ" and Peter says "be imitators of Christ...." So this has now gone to outrageous positions.
Only Paul's Gospel Saves - Pastor in Indianapolis - You Tube Video
This was posted March 2014 at this link. This pastor is not identified by name. However, his words are latent in most evangelical Churches. Without Paul, we would not know from Jesus' words alone we are saved by a simple faith, without obedience to any laws or commands from God previously given.
“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory (Luke 9:26).”
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (John 12:47-48).
Gary Amirault in his article on the "Book of Jacob" Tentmaker.com provides this hostile but honest analysis of the Book of James in the Bible:
James seemed to teach a combination of grace and works. (James Chapter 2) There is disagreement among Protestant churches as to just what James taught. I used to teach that he taught that we were saved by grace which would produce the works God gave us to do. In other words faith would bring forth the works given us from before the foundations of the world. I no longer believe that. I think he mixed law and grace together. Paul constantly mentions church leaders who were destroying his work by a mixture of Mosaic law and grace. Galatians is full of exhortations to stay away from this kind of teaching. James, I believe, is an example of this kind of teaching, which Paul says that those who teach this kind of heresy should castrate themselves.
The Jerusalem church, which preached a "gospel of the circumcision" never came into the pure message of Paul. It reverted back to the Mosaic Law. If God did not destroy the Temple, the Priesthood, and the genealogical records in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD, the Jameses of the church would have destroyed Paul's gospel and we would not have known what he preached. God vindicated the "gospel of the uncircumcision" in the overthrow of those who still had confidence in the Temple and its rituals.
**** But Satan picked up this discarded gospel which mixes law and grace and has injected it into most of the church. It was only supposed to be a transitory gospel to aid the Jew born under the Mosaic Law to enter into the New Covenant of Grace. When that generation died, this gospel was to end.
In truth, the Gospel of Paul misled his companion Trophimus to defile the temple by entering in an uncircumcised state. By God's Law, God had to destroy the Temple soon thereafter for such a violation. The Temple destruction proves the negative result of Paul's Gospel, not its vindication. See our article Trophimus. Also, please note that this indirectly is saying the 12 Apostles' Gospel -- the Gospel of Jesus -- was a "transitory gospel" -- a valid Gospel for a time, and this was Jesus' Gospel before Paul came along and delivered the supposedly true Gospel.
My friends, this shamelessly says that the Gospel of Jesus was a transitory gospel until Paul came along. Uggh!
One of the most troubling thoughts is that Paul has so supplanted Jesus that when we study a Bible topic, most modern pastors quote Paul 90% of the time, and Jesus less than 5%. For 5 years, I kept charts of sermons as I listened, and found it averaged 13 quotes of Paul to 1 of Jesus per sermon. This was shockingly true even when a parable of Jesus was being discussed. And we do this unconsciously because Paulinism is so saturated into the evangelical church. We do not perceive it because we are conditioned to think Paul's doctrines are just as valid as those from Jesus, and there is thus no harm to this subservience of Jesus to Paul.
For example, here is an evangelical article -- "Scriptures on Marriage" -- giving advice for married persons. There is no Pauline slant to the doctrine expressed. But still, there is an enormous weight given to Paul. It is as if Jesus never spoke about Love, kindness, forgiveness, seeking to make things right with one angry at you, the nature of marriage, etc. All NT principles on these topics are solely quoted from Paul with few exceptions where Jesus gets a word in edgewise.
In the article, there are 111 citations of Scripture, 95% quotes. Paul is quoted 38 times, often with long explanations. Of the quotes, Jesus is only quoted 6 times. And barely an explanation of His words appear. See below. In equal distance almost is James and Apostle John's letters which are each quoted 3x. Solomon does well, as we might expect, and Proverbs is quoted 27 x.
Let's review how Jesus' words were used to help on this important topic of marriage.
First, Jesus is cited but not quoted from Matthew talking about God's plan that man and woman would form one flesh. An important passage, but not quoted and briefly mentioned. The article "Scriptures on Marriage" simply cites Matt. 19:4-6.
Second, Jesus is cited in a long string cite, referencing Matt. 6:23. There is no indication of what Jesus says there. Must not be very important, it appears.
Third, without a quote, we learn: "As you read Matthew 5:31-32 you can see that 'Jesus is trying to move us from easy divorce to a deeper commitment to marriage.'” (quoting Dr. Roger Barrier)
Sadly this verse is not discussed or quoted even though it is apparently about marriage!
Next Jesus is quoted 2x but it is the same verse -- John 17:23, as part of this author's prayer -- "my prayer for marriages." “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:23)
We are not told Jesus' prayer is similar; we are simply given the author's prayer. Poor Jesus, didn't He have a similar prayer? I guess we can just push Him aside, judging from this article, and call it 'my prayer.' (My tongue is firmly planted in my cheek.)
Then Jesus's words on marriage are finally brought forth: “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”(Matthew 19:6)
Next, we learn this from Jesus: "Jesus said, “I came that they might have life and have it to the full” (John 10:10). Amazing! Just a quote finally of just Jesus speaking. Hard to hear him normally in this article, but finally we hear the Lord speak on His own!
The article ends with many quotes, and among these are 3 quotes from Jesus:
• But wisdom is proved right by her actions (Matthew 11:19).
• But I tell you that men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment; for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned (Matthew 12:37).
• My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this —that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command (John 15:12-14).
That tallies to just six quotes of Jesus -- the ONE who came to shed His blood for us. But Paul gets quoted in full 38 times. The ratio is thus 38:6 in favor of Paul, or better than 6 to 1 in favor of quoting Paul over Jesus. This is an objective example of what I am saying has happened to our commitment to Jesus.
Thus, it pretty much appears Jesus has disappeared from view, and is of marginal importance. We call Him Lord but pretty much make Paul our Lord. Sad but true.
In Jesus v. Paul: The Two Gospels Compared (Feb 2010) on You Tube, you hear first-hand the normative teaching today that indeed Paul and Jesus differed on things like idol meat, the law, etc., but Jesus was not preaching to Christians -- only Paul was. However, we supposedly need only follow Paul. Why? Because Second Peter calls Paul "scripture," and everything Paul said is thus supposedly infallible. And thus the only way the two contradictory views between Jesus and Paul on doctrine can be reconciled is by casting off Jesus' words to a defunct dispensation, and thus supposedly we need listen to ONLY Paul, so says this video-author. Uggh!
Paulinism's Slant Is Unconsciously Practiced Too
In a political liberal's website called Liberals Like Christ, he notes that Paulinism thrives over the teachings of Jesus. This reveals to us Christians that Paulinism is detectable by non-Christians, and thus they see we disrespect our Master. We are blind to Paulinism's effect because it is so indoctrinated into us. One free of that incessant spelling out what Christianity represents through Paul can see the truth. It writes:
Although they may not recognize it, Conservatives are much more enthused about the teaching of Paul than that of Jesus. Just listen to them, or look at what they write. Most of the time, when they mention Jesus' name, it isn't to promote his teaching about himself, but to promote Paul's teaching about Christ. Here is a perfect example of how "Christian Conservatives" view their identity as "Christians" , not by what Jesus taught, but by the teaching of Paul.
Slanting Preaching: My Monitoring Normative Pauline Churches
I will study various churches to see what normative conservative evangelical Presbyterian or Evangelical churches preach today. If you wish to see the results, you will find them at this link: Slanted Pauline Preaching.
Paulinist Admits He Clings To Paul Because To Just Rely Upon Jesus Would Change "the message completely."
We read at this webpage How We Know Paul Wasn't A False Apostle:
I want to preface this by saying I don't believe Paul was a false Apostle. I must either view his Apostleship as authentic, or throw away everything I believe. Removing Paul's writings and influence from the New Testament would change the message completely.
I wonder sometimes if people actually read what they are saying.
"By any account, Paul was the most intelligent and best-trained of the apostolic band...." (Tektonics, Preterist Exegisis in Paul.)
In chapter six of The Shocking Truth by Rev. Inlow, he relates that some of the KJV editors say that the book of Acts is the most important book of Christianity:
We will start with a very startling quote provided by the highly renowned Bible scholars who wrote the Holy Bible [authorized or King James version] school and library reference edition. “The books of the New Testament were all written after the death of our Lord and before the close of the first century. Of these books, the most precious single book is that of Acts. Because, if we lost one of the Gospels, we should still have three left, and if we lost one of the epistles, we should still have quite a number left. But if we did not have the Acts, we should not have any story of the foundation of the Christian church. The Gospels close with the ascension of our Lord. Then in order of time, comes the first epistle to the Thessalonians. Here we find a man named Paul, calling himself an Apostle, and writing to a church in Thessalonica.”
I have not yet been able to verify this quote in the King James editors' comments. (1/1/2013)
For Further Study
"Hyper-Dispensationalism," Wikipedia.
Robert Breaker The Apostles Doctrines v Paul's Revelations (pro -Paul)-YouTube
Robert Breaker, Why Paul is in the Bible (pro Paul) - YouTube
Robert Breaker, Jesus v Paul (Pro-Paul) - YouTube -- Breaker says it is his "most important sermon" ever. (Breaker erroneously thinks Roman Catholicism was anti-Paul, and it reflected "Peter" point-of-view. Breaker says Peter's views were worthy of rejection because based upon Jesus who was solely for Jews, not Gentiles. The truth is Roman Catholicism embraced Paul's anti-Law doctrine, espcially his anti-Sabbath rule, so as to permit Constantine's decree to move the day of rest to Sunday. This was a big change from the early church pre-Roman Catholicism that resisted Paul-onlyism in Marcionism from 144 AD-325 AD, primarily based on the Law not being abrogated for Christians.)
Robert Breaker, Peter v Paul (pro-Paul -- seems like warmup to Jesus v. Paul) - Pro-Paul.
Robert Breaker, The Great Commission (says Gentiles should only go to Paul, not Jesus of 12.)
Robert Breaker, How Others Viewed Paul - YouTube
Anti-Dispensational Videos
ABC of Kingdom of God (2017) -- I greatly respect Anthony Buzzard, and I am thus sure you will learn alot in the 3 hours necessary to watch or listen his deconstruction of dispensationalism. I confess I listened only 2 minutes.
Rev date: 1/1/2013
