Paul Taught False Doctrine?

[Reformed1689]

Well I read an interesting article today that claims Paul taught false doctrine. That's a new one on me for what the article is trying to argue.

Is Eternal Security of the Believer True, Or Can We Choose to Walk Away from God?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well I read an interesting article today that claims Paul taught false doctrine. That's a new one on me for what the article is trying to argue.

Is Eternal Security of the Believer True, Or Can We Choose to Walk Away from God?

Since Paul was inspired in His theology by God, anything he wrote to us in the scriptures would be all correct!

 

[Reformed1689]

Since Paul was inspired in His theology by God, anything he wrote to us in the scriptures would be all correct!

Oh I agree. And if you think, as the author does, that Paul was a false teacher then that means you have to throw out most of the New Testament.

 

[Deacon]

Since Paul was inspired in His theology by God, anything he wrote to us in the scriptures would be all correct!

Yessss, but that’s so trite and shallow. It misses the point.

Paul wrote to people in his time about problems they were facing. When we read the NT we are reading someone else’s mail; his letters are context dependent... I never met Paul or the people he wrote to... I’ve never been to the places he wrote to and am unfamiliar with the culture of the time, ...and I’m 2000 years separate from that context.

Paul isn’t easy to understand. True, his theology appears scattered at times. (Another example: Does Paul consider slavery a legitimate practice or are all Christian’s considered equal?)
Most of us read Paul through the lens of theological systems developed more than a thousand years after he wrote his letters. We need to clean the lens.

Paul’s writings were inspired, but our interpretation of them is not. They require wisdom, discernment and a good measure of humility. When we sometimes find contradictions in his work we should sit back and ponder what influenced the apostle to change.

Rob

 

[Reformed]

Yessss, but that’s so trite and shallow. It misses the point.

Paul wrote to people in his time about problems they were facing. When we read the NT we are reading someone else’s mail; his letters are context dependent... I never met Paul or the people he wrote to... I’ve never been to the places he wrote to and am unfamiliar with the culture of the time, ...and I’m 2000 years separate from that context.

Paul isn’t easy to understand. True, his theology appears scattered at times. (Another example: Does Paul consider slavery a legitimate practice or are all Christian’s considered equal?)
Most of us read Paul through the lens of theological systems developed more than a thousand years after he wrote his letters. We need to clean the lens.

Paul’s writings were inspired, but our interpretation of them is not. They require wisdom, discernment and a good measure of humility. When we sometimes find contradictions in his work we should sit back and ponder what influenced the apostle to change.

Rob

Rob,

I am not trying to be cheeky but I am not sure I am following you. Almost any respected systematic theology takes the historical-grammatical context of Pauline literature into consideration. For example, while understanding that Ephesians is a circular letter (it was intended for a larger geographic audience than just Ephesus) is important for context, it does not change translation or the theological implications of the tetter for today or 100 years from now.

 

[Rob_BW]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily call that an article. It is wordpress, after all.

 

[Reynolds]

Well I read an interesting article today that claims Paul taught false doctrine. That's a new one on me for what the article is trying to argue.

Is Eternal Security of the Believer True, Or Can We Choose to Walk Away from God?

Being totally honest, I find it hard to see how ant non-Calvinist can hold to eternal security. You can not make a logical case for it without the other 4 points of Calvinism. (I know. I know. It's "p" in Calvinism)

 

[Deacon]

Rob,
I am not trying to be cheeky but I am not sure I am following you. Almost any respected systematic theology takes the historical-grammatical context of Pauline literature into consideration. For example, while understanding that Ephesians is a circular letter (it was intended for a larger geographic audience than just Ephesus) is important for context, it does not change translation or the theological implications of the tetter for today or 100 years from now.

Hey, I was cheeky! I was responding to those that simply say, “the Bible says .... so I believe it”. There is an interpretive barrier that needs to be crossed.

And there are some doctrines that perhaps we might have defined further than the authors of Scripture take them. In the case of the original post, I believe the question doesn’t necessarily require an either/or answer. It’s a perspective issue.

Rob

 

[Reformed1689]

Being totally honest, I find it hard to see how ant non-Calvinist can hold to eternal security. You can not make a logical case for it without the other 4 points of Calvinism. (I know. I know. It's "p" in Calvinism)

Good thing Calvinism is Scripture then since Scripture definitely teaches Eternal Security.

 

[Reynolds]

Good thing Calvinism is Scripture then since Scripture definitely teaches Eternal Security.

If you say so.

 

[Reformed1689]

If you say so.

Jesus said so "No man shall pluck them out"

 

[Reynolds]

Jesus said so "No man shall pluck them out"

"Man" and "pluck" being the words up for discussion.

 

[Reformed1689]

"Man" and "pluck" being the words up for discussion.

Then by all means, discuss.

 

[Reynolds]

Then by all means, discuss.

Without unconditional election and without irresistible grace, man has the "free will" to choose to leave His hand.

Those being the reasons a true Classical Arminian does not hold to an absolute eternal security. Most non-Calvinists seem to want their cake and eat it too, when it comes to this issue.

 

[Reformed1689]

Without unconditional election and without irresistible grace, man has the "free will" to choose to leave His hand.

Those being the reasons a true Classical Arminian does not hold to an absolute eternal security. Most non-Calvinists seem to want their cake and eat it too, when it comes to this issue.

Interesting that you couldn't use Scripture to make an argument.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Yessss, but that’s so trite and shallow. It misses the point.

Paul wrote to people in his time about problems they were facing. When we read the NT we are reading someone else’s mail; his letters are context dependent... I never met Paul or the people he wrote to... I’ve never been to the places he wrote to and am unfamiliar with the culture of the time, ...and I’m 2000 years separate from that context.

Paul isn’t easy to understand. True, his theology appears scattered at times. (Another example: Does Paul consider slavery a legitimate practice or are all Christian’s considered equal?)
Most of us read Paul through the lens of theological systems developed more than a thousand years after he wrote his letters. We need to clean the lens.

Paul’s writings were inspired, but our interpretation of them is not. They require wisdom, discernment and a good measure of humility. When we sometimes find contradictions in his work we should sit back and ponder what influenced the apostle to change.

Rob

At the risk of derailing the thread, I'm commenting only on Paul vis-à-vis slavery/equality. In many verses, Paul expounds that we are equal before God, believers equally saved by grace through faith, unbelievers equally facing condemnation, bond or free, man or woman, Jew or Gentile. IMO, Paul never really addresses the legitimacy of slavery, though in today's social climate his non-address would be considered to be tacit approval (wrongly, IMO.) Paul's instructions were to bond-slaves, like indentured servants with an end-point of service, and far different from the captured/enslaved who were considered to be like especially valuable livestock. Paul was merely stating for slaves/masters what he said about himself in Phil. 4, to be content in whatever condition one was in, serving God by serving others.

 

[Reynolds]

Interesting that you couldn't use Scripture to make an argument.

What's interesting is that you are always trying to be snide and start some crap. You are well aware that true Calvinism intertwines a major portion of the defense of perseverance of the Saints on both unconditional election snd irresistible grace. I can use scripture, but I have no desire to post what has been posted 1000 times. Now, you can have the last word. I refuse to get into a childish bickering match with you.

 

[Van]

Being totally honest, I find it hard to see how ant non-Calvinist can hold to eternal security. You can not make a logical case for it without the other 4 points of Calvinism. (I know. I know. It's "p" in Calvinism)

You view, while it can be kindly said to be provincial, is utter nonsense. Any theology that has God deciding who to transfer into Christ, can claim no one but God puts you in Christ and therefore no one can snatch you out of His hand.

Yes we can be saved through faith, meaning our faith, without requiring loss of eternal security because it is God alone who either credits our faith as righteousness, or not. And if not, like the folks of Matthew 7, folks without credited faith were never saved, Jesus never knew them.

 

[Reynolds]

You view, while it can be kindly said to be provincial, is utter nonsense. Any theology that has God deciding who to transfer into Christ, can claim no one but God puts you in Christ and therefore no one can snatch you out of His hand.

Yes we can be saved through faith, meaning our faith, without requiring loss of eternal security because it is God alone who either credits our faith as righteousness, or not. And if not, like the folks of Matthew 7, folks without credited faith were never saved, Jesus never knew them.

Your post makes no sense. I read it 4 times and still have no clue what point you are attempting to make.

 

[Van]

Sadly it seems, one of the prerequisites of being Cal leaning is a weakness in reading comprehension. On the chance you are being honest, rather than simply deflecting, I will attempt to answer your assertion in small bits.

1) Not all non-Cals believe salvation depends on people choosing to have faith in Christ. It does not, Romans 9:16.

2) It is God's choice to require people to believe in Jesus. Therefore choosing to believe is required by God. John 3:16

3) We are saved by grace through faith, thus faith precedes being saved, just are entering a room through a door means you pass through the door before you enter the room.

4) If God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, God transfers us into Christ, into the kingdom of His Son. (Romans 4:4-5; 4:23-24 and Colossians 1:13)

5) Since we do not "put ourselves in Christ" (God does 1 Corinthians 1:30) we cannot transfer ourselves out of Christ. And Christ will never cast us out. (John 6:37)

6) Therefore OSAS