Effect of Paul on view of salvation

[agedman]

While reading online early this morning, I came across a writing in which a person rejected Paul’s authority and as a result any words by Paul in the Bible.

He held the extreme Pelagius view that he was good enough to keep the law and didn’t need Christ.

He used the testimony of the Gospels to show that even Christ taught he was not God and that salvation was a free choice of whether a person was going to keep the law or not.

What caught my interest was his attempt to support his view by using the Bible less any writings by Paul.

It got me to thinking, if one does not use the writings of Paul, what view do the Scriptures most likely support?

Without Paul's letters to the churches, is more support given the Pelagian Armenian view or the Augustinian Calvinist view, or is there another view that might emerge?

 

[mandym]

Without Paul's letters to the churches, is more support given the Pelagian Armenian view or the Augustinian Calvinist view, or is there another view that might emerge?

What does it matter? Paul's writings are the Word of God. No point in such hypotheticals which serve no real purpose. There is no reason not to use the writings of Paul, to do so is to ignore the Word of God.

 

[Ruiz]

If you rip out Paul's letters in the New Testament, you then will rip out the heart of the New Testament.

 

[agedman]

What does it matter? Paul's writings are the Word of God. No point in such hypotheticals which serve no real purpose. There is no reason not to use the writings of Paul, to do so is to ignore the Word of God.

I figured that would come out soon in the thread. It is not the intent of the thread to delete, replace or diminish Paul's letters as the word of God.

However, Paul's writings have been and are questioned by scholars and I want to avoid that rabbit trail on this thread.

Those who question, doubt, and/or reject the writings as authentic are in general strongly Arminian in which free will in living by the law trumps the cross and brings the whole claim of Christ being God into question.

The Augustinian folks generally trace their views directly to Paul and Paul's interpretation of Scriptures through his letters are important to the Calvinistic view.

I was hoping this thread would demonstrate, although Paul is important to the the Calvinistic view, that the view is not held together only upon those letters but the view is substantially supported by the rest of the Bible.

And, if the view is only supportable by the use of Paul, what other view might emerge?

 

[Greektim]

If you rip out Paul's letters in the New Testament, you then will rip out the heart of the New Testament.

I disagree... I think the core of the Bible (much less the NT) is the gospel accounts. It is the peak of an archway w/ one side being the OT and the other being the NT.

I view Paul's gospel as a small part of the gospel message Jesus was preaching. One reason I say this is b/c of continuity sake, Jesus' message was more centered on God's rule which is where the term "gospel" (euaggelion) came from in Isa 52:7 of the LXX. THus the central message of the gospel is not justification by faith but God's rule in creation being re-established as he is reconciling all things to himself (not just humans). Paul uses that theme but does not focus on it likely b/c it was already a central theme in the OT and the gospel accounts. Thus he focuses more on the human aspect of the gospel and salvation even though that is a limited portion of God's mission to redeem his creation.

As it relates to the OP, I think the concept of a proper soteriology is easily found in the gospel accounts and OT. John emphasizes the aspect of faith and proper repentance. Mark 1:14-15 display the core of Jesus' message as being God's rule established through faith and repentance. Paul picked up on Jesus' message and the Jesus tradition which he inherited. He did not invent that aspect of theology. His focus was on Gentile acceptance in the people of God and the forensic aspects of salvation like justification and adoption.

 

[mandym]

I figured that would come out soon in the thread. It is not the intent of the thread to delete, replace or diminish Paul's letters as the word of God.

However, Paul's writings have been and are questioned by scholars and I want to avoid that rabbit trail on this thread.

Those who question, doubt, and/or reject the writings as authentic are in general strongly Arminian in which free will in living by the law trumps the cross and brings the whole claim of Christ being God into question.

The Augustinian folks generally trace their views directly to Paul and Paul's interpretation of Scriptures through his letters are important to the Calvinistic view.

I was hoping this thread would demonstrate, although Paul is important to the the Calvinistic view, that the view is not held together only upon those letters but the view is substantially supported by the rest of the Bible.

And, if the view is only supportable by the use of Paul, what other view might emerge?

It is rather sophomoric turn this into a cal vs. non cal issue. Some people just cannot help themselves.

 

[preachinjesus]

When I saw the title for the thread I thought it was a Hebrew discussion...the pual is a verb tense in Hebrew.

Ah well...

 

[preacher4truth]

Here is a thread where something along these lines was discussed:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74458

 

[Ruiz]

I disagree... I think the core of the Bible (much less the NT) is the gospel accounts. It is the peak of an archway w/ one side being the OT and the other being the NT.

I view Paul's gospel as a small part of the gospel message Jesus was preaching. One reason I say this is b/c of continuity sake, Jesus' message was more centered on God's rule which is where the term "gospel" (euaggelion) came from in Isa 52:7 of the LXX. THus the central message of the gospel is not justification by faith but God's rule in creation being re-established as he is reconciling all things to himself (not just humans). Paul uses that theme but does not focus on it likely b/c it was already a central theme in the OT and the gospel accounts. Thus he focuses more on the human aspect of the gospel and salvation even though that is a limited portion of God's mission to redeem his creation.

As it relates to the OP, I think the concept of a proper soteriology is easily found in the gospel accounts and OT. John emphasizes the aspect of faith and proper repentance. Mark 1:14-15 display the core of Jesus' message as being God's rule established through faith and repentance. Paul picked up on Jesus' message and the Jesus tradition which he inherited. He did not invent that aspect of theology. His focus was on Gentile acceptance in the people of God and the forensic aspects of salvation like justification and adoption.

If all Scripture is inspired by God, and Paul's words are a part of "all Scripture" then it is essential to the Bible. These books are not merely optional, they are essential or else we take away from God's Word.

 

[agedman]

When I saw the title for the thread I thought it was a Hebrew discussion...the pual is a verb tense in Hebrew.

Ah well...

Oh, my.

I am such the dyslexic one. If it weren't for spell check, I'd never get past the mistakes.

OK, so how does one edit the title to a thread???

I don't see this option anywhere. It should be somewhere - one would think - but maybe not.

 

[agedman]

Here is a thread where something along these lines was discussed:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74458

But that thread strayed into what Jefferson thought of Calvin.

Would that this thread not be pulled to "unravel" but to stitch together some loose end that might be lingering.

 

[MB]

While reading online early this morning, I came across a writing in which a person rejected Paul’s authority and as a result any words by Paul in the Bible.

He held the extreme Pelagius view that he was good enough to keep the law and didn’t need Christ.

He used the testimony of the Gospels to show that even Christ taught he was not God and that salvation was a free choice of whether a person was going to keep the law or not.

What caught my interest was his attempt to support his view by using the Bible less any writings by Paul.

It got me to thinking, if one does not use the writings of Paul, what view do the Scriptures most likely support?

Without Paul's letters to the churches, is more support given the Pelagian Armenian view or the Augustinian Calvinist view, or is there another view that might emerge?

In my opinion God's word is all truth it doesn't support anything but the truth. The ideas of men have created these different doctrines not scripture.
MB

 

[preacher4truth]

But that thread strayed into what Jefferson thought of Calvin.

Would that this thread not be pulled to "unravel" but to stitch together some loose end that might be lingering.

The point is that even Jefferson attacked Paul and his teachings.

Thus in answer to your question, the fact that Jefferson rejected Paul was mainly for the reason that he wanted to reject the fact God elects persons based only on His own purpose and grace, not upon works. Jefferson doesn't like this truth, and was belligerent toward this biblical revelation.

Such a view is definitely Pelagian.

As to your OP, this is what you are looking for, in how does rejecting Pauls writings give us a view of "what the Scriptures likely support." Which is a misnomer, as Pauls writings are in support and are a revelation of the whole counsel of God. I believe your wording lends itself to support that those who reject the writings of Paul can conclude that he is incorrect. I believe this is accidental on your part. The wording also lends itself toward one believing Pauls writings are then contrary to the rest of the balance of Biblical revelation. I believe this also to be accidental on your part.

Therefore I presented you with a adequate example of a person who; 1) Rejected the writings of Paul, and; 2) What conclusions this led said person to embrace.

I've shown it leads to a Pelagianistic theology.

It looks to me this in line with your request in the OP.

 

[Greektim]

If all Scripture is inspired by God, and Paul's words are a part of "all Scripture" then it is essential to the Bible. These books are not merely optional, they are essential or else we take away from God's Word.

I'm not arguing for the gospel accounts to be more inspired and other scripture as less. I am saying that some parts of scripture are more important than others. Or to say it another way, some portions have more significance in weightier areas. After all, it was you who said equated Paul's writings as the heart of the NT. It sounded like you were putting a qualitative weight on his writings. It can't be a quantitative weight b/c Luke wrote more than Paul. So I was just giving my take on the issue of weighty scripture.

Considering the purpose of the OT (cf. Lk 24:44ff), the gospel accounts complete the story of the OT, and the NT looks back to that account as the significant event that shapes orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Therefore, the gospel accounts are by far the most important (weightiest) of scripture. The early church thought so.... that is why they copied the 4 accounts more than any other manuscript of the NT.

 

[Iconoclast]

What does it matter? Paul's writings are the Word of God. No point in such hypotheticals which serve no real purpose. There is no reason not to use the writings of Paul, to do so is to ignore the Word of God.

:applause::applause::applause::wavey:

 

[agedman]

As to your OP, this is what you are looking for, in how does rejecting Pauls writings give us a view of "what the Scriptures likely support." Which is a misnomer, as Pauls writings are in support and are a revelation of the whole counsel of God. I believe your wording lends itself to support that those who reject the writings of Paul can conclude that he is incorrect. I believe this is accidental on your part. The wording also lends itself toward one believing Pauls writings are then contrary to the rest of the balance of Biblical revelation. I believe this also to be accidental on your part.

Therefore I presented you with a adequate example of a person who; 1) Rejected the writings of Paul, and; 2) What conclusions this led said person to embrace.

I've shown it leads to a Pelagianistic theology.

It looks to me this in line with your request in the OP.

I agree with your statement of Paul's writings.

For the sake of giving the Pelagianist their end of the rope (so to speak) I presented as agreeably unoffensive as was in me the offer. The desire for the skilled forum folks to construct support for either the Augustine-Calvin view or the Pelagian-Arminian view from balance of the Scriptures (less Paul's writings) seemed like a really good bridge building idea. And besides, that way the Pelagianist's claim concerning Paul would be made toothless.

Do you think I went to far in setting up the thread? Perhaps. Because I am most definitely hold Calvinistic views, I wanted the Arminians to at least know I was trying to play fair.

I was hoping to tease both groups into a spirited series of posts that would perhaps bring unity on some points.

But, the response has shown that the effort is become a failure.

 

[convicted1]

If you rip out Paul's letters in the New Testament, you then will rip out the heart of the New Testament.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

If you take Paul's writings out of the NT, then you have just knocked down one, or two of the church's pillars, therefore, severely crippling the church. Or that's how I see it.

 

[convicted1]

While reading online early this morning, I came across a writing in which a person rejected Paul’s authority and as a result any words by Paul in the Bible.

He held the extreme Pelagius view that he was good enough to keep the law and didn’t need Christ.

He used the testimony of the Gospels to show that even Christ taught he was not God and that salvation was a free choice of whether a person was going to keep the law or not.

What caught my interest was his attempt to support his view by using the Bible less any writings by Paul.

It got me to thinking, if one does not use the writings of Paul, what view do the Scriptures most likely support?

Without Paul's letters to the churches, is more support given the Pelagian Armenian view or the Augustinian Calvinist view, or is there another view that might emerge?

FTR, Brother, I did not see the C/A slant that some were saying in this thread. I thought it was fairly balanced.

 

[HankD]

Effect of Pual on view of salvation

Oh well, I was ready to learn more Hebrew Grammar...

HankD