ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Clete]

How is Paul's message different?

How is it not different?

I invite you to answer the questions I just posed to LA.

They illustrate just two of the differences between Paul and the twelve but to give you a direct answer, the difference is the Gospel of Grace.

No one other than Paul preached the gospel of grace - no one. Not Jesus, not Peter nor James nor John nor anyone else.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

That idea is exclusive to Paul!

Further, there are lots and lots of doctrinal debates in the church that have persisted for centuries and a great many of them, if not all of them, fall along the lines of Paul vs Peter, James & John.

Is water baptism required for salvation?

If you say, "Yes", you'll cite the New Testament books NOT written by Paul, including the Gospels.

If you say, "No", you'll cite nothing at all but the books written by Paul.

The same is true about whether works are required for salvation, or whether you can lost your salvation, or speaking in tongues, or whether the rapture will occur before or after the Tribulation, or whether you should only eat certain kinds of foods, or whether you should observe the Sabbath or tithe or obey the Ten Commandments, etc, etc.

All of these seemingly unrelated issues, and many more, all fall along the lines of Paul vs the rest of the Biblical authors and so I'm not being flippant at all when I say that the list of what isn't different is much shorter than the list of things which are different. Very nearly the whole thing is different because the difference is literally the difference between observance of the law being required vs. observance of the law being prohibited.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Here's an excellent example of just the sort of doctrinal debate I'm talking about. Skim through the first several posts and take note of the proof texts on each side...

Swine Sausage - Sin?

 

[turbosixx]

How is it not different?

I invite you to answer the questions I just posed to LA.

They illustrate just two of the differences between Paul and the twelve but to give you a direct answer, the difference is the Gospel of Grace.

No one other than Paul preached the gospel of grace - no one. Not Jesus, not Peter nor James nor John nor anyone else.

Are these different gospels than the gospel of grace because they are not called the gospel of grace?
Rom. 1:9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son,
Rom. 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God,
Phil. 1:27 Watever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.
Eph. 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Because Paul is the only one to use the term "gospel of grace" does not make it a different gospel. They are all based on Christ.

 

[turbosixx]

Is water baptism required for salvation?

Didn’t Paul baptize believers? If he was given a gospel that doesn’t require baptism for salvation, why did he baptize believers? In one case he batized them a second time.

I do not see where he stopped the practice or preached it's cessation.

 

[Clete]

Are these different gospels than the gospel of grace because they are not called the gospel of grace?
Rom. 1:9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son,
Rom. 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God,
Phil. 1:27 Watever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.
Eph. 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Because Paul is the only one to use the term "gospel of grace" does not make it a different gospel. They are all based on Christ.

Well Christ is of course what the Gospel of Grace has primarily in common with the Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus and the Twelve.

I should point out, for the sake of clarity, that the concept of grace is not exclusive to Paul. Even the Law, what I am referring to as the Kingdom Gospel, was under-girded by grace because no one is capable of perfect observance of the the Law. What is exclusive to Paul is the idea of salvation and righteousness being imputed entirely apart from works. It's salvation by grace through faith plus nothing that is exclusive to Paul.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[turbosixx]

The same is true about whether works are required for salvation, or whether you can lost your salvation, or speaking in tongues, or whether the rapture will occur before or after the Tribulation, or whether you should only eat certain kinds of foods, or whether you should observe the Sabbath or tithe or obey the Ten Commandments, etc, etc.

All of these seemingly unrelated issues, and many more, all fall along the lines of Paul vs the rest of the Biblical authors and so I'm not being flippant at all when I say that the list of what isn't different is much shorter than the list of things which are different. Very nearly the whole thing is different because the difference is literally the difference between observance of the law being required vs. observance of the law being prohibited.

I see total agreement between Paul and the other writers. Their audiences are at times different but the elements of the gospel are in agreement. For example, I see Paul and James in agreement.

 

[turbosixx]

What is exclusive to Paul is the idea of salvation and righteousness being imputed entirely apart from works. It's salvation by grace through faith plus nothing that is exclusive to Paul.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I suggest to you that Paul did not preach faith plus nothing.

1 Cor. 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Their being saved by the gospel is conditional. Also, how does one believe the gospel in vain?

 

[Clete]

Didn’t Paul baptize believers? If he was given a gospel that doesn’t require baptism for salvation, why did he baptize believers? In one case he batized them a second time.

I do not see where he stopped the practice or preached it's cessation.

The details of this specific debate would be a topic for another thread.

Do you not see the point I'm making, even if you can't intuit the details?

I didn't bring all of those issues up so we could debate them, I brought them up to answer your question. Go find a debate somewhere about water baptism and see if what I told you was accurate. Those holding the position that it is required will cite non-Pauline biblical sources and accept them at face value while taking Pauline passages and explaining how they don't mean what they seem to say or else just ignoring them altogether.

There are, I'm sure, occasional exceptions to this general rule but spend some time researching it if you don't believe me. The pattern is completely obvious.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I suggest to you that Paul did not preach faith plus nothing.

1 Cor. 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Their being saved by the gospel is conditional. Also, how does one believe the gospel in vain?

I know for a fact that he did. Romans 4:5

Is there any chance at all that you are going to respond to the actual point of my comments or do you only wish to drag this off into the weeds?

Were you actually asking the question I answered or were you preaching?

 

[turbosixx]

The details of this specific debate would be a topic for another thread.

Do you not see the point I'm making, even if you can't intuit the details?

I didn't bring all of those issues up so we could debate them, I brought them up to answer your question. Go find a debate somewhere about water baptism and see if what I told you was accurate. Those holding the position that it is required will cite non-Pauline biblical sources and accept them at face value while taking Pauline passages and explaining how they don't mean what they seem to say or else just ignoring them altogether.

There are, I'm sure, occasional exceptions to this general rule but spend some time researching it if you don't believe me. The pattern is completely obvious.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree this is another matter but my point was I don't see them answering my questions because I don't agree with the fact that Paul didn't view baptism as not necessary.

I've studied this but see holes in peoples reasoning, which I know we all do.

 

[Nick M]

I see total agreement between Paul and the other writers.

You are either stupid or evil. There is no possible way to draw that conclusion.

 

[turbosixx]

I know for a fact that he did. Romans 4:5

Is there any chance at all that you are going to respond to the actual point of my comments or do you only wish to drag this off into the weeds?

Were you actually asking the question I answered or were you preaching?

I'm trying to address your proof points and your right, it has gotten off track. Sorry.

I am trying to answer. Your points of what Paul preached that is different I don't agree with.

 

[Clete]

I see total agreement between Paul and the other writers. Their audiences are at times different but the elements of the gospel are in agreement. For example, I see Paul and James in agreement.

There is only two ways you can say this.

1. You are ignorant of what one or the other teach in Scripture.

2. You make one or the other of them say something other than what it seems like they are saying by having simply read the words they wrote.

It is almost always the later.

As an example...

Please explain how Romans 4:4-6 and James 2:14-17 are in agreement.

 

[patrick jane]

I suggest to you that Paul did not preach faith plus nothing.

1 Cor. 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Their being saved by the gospel is conditional. Also, how does one believe the gospel in vain?

Paul is only stressing that we must believe and never stop believing, I don't know why people point to the word if. It simply means to remember to believe what he taught.

in vain means - for nothing; doing something with no results.

 

[turbosixx]

You are either stupid or evil. There is no possible way to draw that conclusion.

I don't think I'm evil but I'm not sure I'm not stupid. There are times it looks that way.

That conclusion can be drawn and I'd be glad to explain.

 

[turbosixx]

Paul is only stressing that we must believe and never stop believing, I don't know why people point to the word if. It simply means remember to believe what he taught.

Can someone stop believing? They sure can stop following Christ and therefore believed in vain.

 

[Nick M]

I see total agreement between Paul and the other writers. Their audiences are at times different but the elements of the gospel are in agreement. For example, I see Paul and James in agreement.

I think you are evil and not stupid. James explicitly states works justify a man and faith alone will not do it. James sent spies to see what and why Paul was doing what he was doing.

20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

 

[Nick M]

Can someone stop believing?

No. You cannot un-know who your parents are. In Corinthians were those that did not believe in the resurrection. Therefore, their faith was in vain. If there was no resurrection, their faith would do nothing for them.

 

[Clete]

I'm trying to address your proof points and your right, it has gotten off track. Sorry.

I am trying to answer. Your points of what Paul preached that is different I don't agree with.

Okay, well the point isn't any one of those issues but that all of them, regardless of which side of the issue you fall on, the proof texts will either be Pauline or otherwise.

Every book on whether you can lose your salvation, for example, goes through their proof-texts and generally takes them all to mean precisely what they seem to say while taking their problem texts and explaining them away, suggesting that they do not mean what they seem to mean. The only difference between a book that affirms the possibility of loosing your salvation and one that does not is that they have the opposite set of proof/problem texts. One will have Pauline proof texts, the other will have Pauline problem texts.

The same pattern is literally all over the place throughout the whole of Christianity. Church of Christ members interpret Paul in light of Peter, James and John, Baptists interpret Peter, James and John in light of Paul. It's everywhere!

It is the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist that can read the whole New Testament and never run into a single problem text that needs explaining away. The whole thing means what it seems to say - all of it. Paul said what he meant and so did James.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[turbosixx]

There is only two ways you can say this.

1. You are ignorant of what one or the other teach in Scripture.

2. You make one or the other of them say something other than what it seems like they are saying by having simply read the words they wrote.

It is almost always the later.

As an example...

Please explain how Romans 4:4-6 and James 2:14-17 are in agreement.

James is talking about works of righteousness and Paul is talking about works “of the law”. The law of Moses to be specific.

Looking at the context it’s clear Paul is talking about the Mosaical law. We know that the law of Moses could not save (eternal life) and that is what Paul is telling them. Live by faith not by the law. In Ch. 4 he uses Abraham a man who was counted righteous before the law and before circumcision to prove that one can be righteous apart from them. 4:10 Under what circumstances was it credited?

He deals with the same thing in Galatians.
Gal. 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise…..5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

James uses that same OT scripture to prove that works complete faith.
James 2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness and he was called God’s friend.

I could add a lot more but for time. Paul never says apart from work of righteousness just apart from works "of the law".

 

[turbosixx]

No. You cannot un-know who your parents are. In Corinthians were those that did not believe in the resurrection. Therefore, their faith was in vain. If there was no resurrection, their faith would do nothing for them.

I agree.