 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  kerygma Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2002 Total Posts : 45 | Posted 1/28/2004 10:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all,
As a Christian, I have to say I haven't been aware until recently of a whole underground movement afoot (I suspect it has been going on for some time) to totally discredit Paul as a legitimate apostle, as an inspired writer for God, as a liar, etc.
So, it's interesting to see Jews and Muslims, for example, on message boards use these accusations to try to invalidate much, if not all, of what Christianity is-by saying that much of the New Testament and also much of Christianity is based on a false premise, as they're based on Paul's works and words.
Even "Christians", or those who claim to follow Christ, proclaim what Paul taught was not what Christ taught. That Christ actually is referring to Paul when He mentions a liar in Revelations. And on and on...
So, I'm hoping that you here are familiar with the typical plattitudes offered against Paul, so that I don't have to list them all here, nor their "defense" offered up by those who make the claims.
I'm posting to ask what are the best lengthy and specific counters there are to this on the web which I can access and read.
I mean to tell you I've not found another strawman against Christianity which seems so well "backed up", if only for the volume of material I've seen on it. Here's just an example:
www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm
I've just not found anywhere near the material to counter these arguments, and I'm really interested in reading the response to it.
What do you all know?
In His peace,
Scott But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  kingsaint Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2003 Total Posts : 80 | Posted 1/28/2004 11:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | Scott,
It is my opinion that the attacks on Paul to which you refer are really attacks on a certain reading of Paul that is now being questioned. Christian theology has been dominated by Paul. The theological greats, such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth etc. all drew heavily from Paul (especially Romans and Galatians). Augustine and Luther both wrote works on Romans and Galatians. It is because Augustine and Luther misinterpreted Paul that we now have attacks on Paul. I think that once we get Paul right, these attacks will end.
For instance, take the history of the interpretation of Romans 7:13(14)-25. Before Augustine, or before Augustine changed his mind!, the early church interpreted Paul to mean the unregenerate person. It was only Augustine who claimed it refered to a regenerate person. Augustine's interpretation was followed by Luther and Calvin. However, most scholars today think that the pre-Augustinians were right.
There is now a "school" of thought called the "New Perspective on Paul" which questions the reading of Paul coming from the Augustine/Luther/Calvin tradition. If you want a good refutation of some popular attacks on Paul, see N.T. Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said--he has a chapter where he refutes A.N. Wilson's assertion that Jesus and Paul have little in common.
It is too bad the Christianity has misinterpreted Paul. But that misinterpretation is being exposed on many fronts, including the debate on Open Theism. It is not an accident that those most in the reformation tradition are the most against Open Theism. The upcoming meeting of the newly formed "Reformation Society of the Twin Cities" will no doubt take on Open Theism. The meeting is based on Galatians 1:6-10, which I think they will apply to Open Theism!  "Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Wahoo Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2004 Total Posts : 142 | Posted 1/28/2004 12:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by kingsaint
I think that once we get Paul right, these attacks will end.
My brain is atrophied a little, but 20 minutes of mental discipline a day and I will be able to comprehend more of these discussions.
I'm sure that I read about the authorship of Acts, that the most likely auther, Luke, meant to give Paul some credentials in his day. Paul was not just a theologian... He was ministering to the church, those first Christians who actually witnessed Jesus ascend into the heavens. I have to do some homework but anyone who knows more on this, be my guest.
Notice that Paul was not merely giving decrees in his letter writing. He was caring for the church. This is where perhaps Augustine and others lacked the data to practice good hermeneutics. What the author intends for the audience to hear from the text is the interpretation that we need to chew on. That is not a simple task.
I hope I'm making a good contribution. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Alan Rhoda Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 680 | Posted 1/28/2004 1:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hey Scott, I'm not an expert on these matters, but my inclination is to agree with kingsaint here. I checked out the link you posted and it's clear that the fellow rejects Paul because he takes Paul to be advocating the strong theological determinism that the late Augustine, Luther, and Calvin embraced. I don't think that's what Paul actually thought. Perhaps it's time for me to read up on the "New Perspective" on Paul.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
  |  rsirkel Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 183 | Posted 2/2/2004 7:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | kingsaint Thanks for your post replying to kerygma and letting us know about N.T. Wright and "the new perspective on Paul" movement. I am enjoying reading and listening to Wright and the others. Not only because of their knowledge of Judaism and early Christianity but also the issue of how the reformers skewed some of the meanings of Paul. I've listened to several hours of Wright's lectures and will probably invest in some of his, Sanders, and Dunn's writings. You were right Alan, it's time to read up on the new perspective on Paul. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  kerygma Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2002 Total Posts : 45 | Posted 2/2/2004 8:55 AM (GMT -6) |   | Well,
Thanks to those who have taken the time to reply back. I'm not sure about Paul being misunderstood because of Augustine/Luther/Calvin at least from what I have seen - I rarely if ever see their names brought up in these arguments (perhaps I chose a bad example by citing that particular website). I will check out some of the books cited-there seem to be a few that would be good reads!
| | Back to Top | | |
  |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 2/3/2004 3:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  Wahoo Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2004 Total Posts : 142 | Posted 2/5/2004 8:25 PM (GMT -6) |   | 2 Timothy 1:15 “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me…” NASB
Revelation 1:11 “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches…” NASB
Revelation 2:2 “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false.” NASB
There is a point made here. It appears that Paul has noted that “all” who were in Asia had turned away from him. Then, in Revelation it appears Jesus addresses the churches in Asia, and specifically the church at Ephesus, saying “apostles…not” and affirming that they were false.
Are there some people that claimed to be apostles that I missed here? I have limited resources so if anyone has any historical information about this, please comment.
Meanwhile, does Paul’s claim that he was an apostle, false or not, credit or discredit his teaching?
A false prophet is marked by prophesies that do not come to pass. What are the marks of a false apostle?
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  rsirkel Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 183 | Posted 2/6/2004 2:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | wahoo What about Peter's testimony? Along with your previous post of Luke authoring Acts, we have two witnesses in Scripture. It seems to me the anti Paul crowd is way off the mark if they are using other Scripture as inspired and discount these witnesses from Scripture.
NKJV 2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:52 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|