filmov
tv
Must We Allow Paul to Contradict Jesus Because God Has Allowed Paul in Canon? Ep 1: Questioning Paul
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e232d/e232d1af7b3002c93e9285b7cb90c27a8de12191" alt="preview_player"
Показать описание
Elevating Jesus over Paul: Handling Objections
Hi Anonymous
Well, you appear to be asking how to overcome the objection that the Bible we received must be accepted in its present form because God supposedly would not allow this to exist unless it was His will. Am I close to identifying the point you anticipate will be raised against ignoring Paul?
Of course, this objection has no Bible support itself. It is just a human doctrine.
It may be influenced by the mistranslation of 2 Tim. 3:16 -- rendered as "All scripture is inspired of God." But in Greek, the KJV inferred IS there where it did not belong. It truly reads "all scripture inspired of God is useful," etc. See link.
First, it was always absurd to say all "scripture" -- a word simply meaning a writing - is inspired, as that would mean my email here, and yours to me would be inspired because they are writings too. This is why Tyndale in 1536 rendered this from the Greek -- as was the Latin translation too -- only that "all inspired scripture is profitable," etc. Id.
More important is the following information to challenge the human supposition behind this objection you allude to:
1. In 1885, the King James Bible removed several books that were included in the 1611 KJV Bible. See link.
So did God make a mistake for 274 years? or did He allow us to make a mistake for 274 years? It necessarily is the latter, because God does not make mistakes.
2. Also, reading Jesus over Paul is a proper Protestant hermeneutic if we follow even Luther's principle of how to read canon when one passage contradicts another. We just make a different choice than Luther did on who is our sole teacher.
When Luther started the reformation, and did not merely correct Catholic errors on indulgencies and baptism for justification, Luther relied upon Paul to change salvation doctrine to faith alone. Luther did so by claiming Paul was in "advance" of Jesus and Moses. Luther recognized that Paul contradicted both. Thus, Luther for the first 17 years of the Reformation taught that it is proper we read Paul, and we can ignore the Jesus speaking in Mark, Luke & John who was "behind" Paul in wisdom and inspiration.
First, read this from Luther:
“There is no man living on Earth Who knows how to distinguish between The law and the gospel … even the man Jesus Christ was so wanting in Understanding when he was in the vineyard that an angel had to console him though he was a doctor from heaven he was strengthened by the angel.” (Luther, Luther Works 54, 127.)
Second, read this from Luther in the 1522 Preface to the NT: "the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke." See "Luther's Criticism of Scripture," The Bibliotheca sacra (Dallas Theological Seminary: 1906) Volume 63 at 18, citing Luther Preface to the New Testament from E.A. lxii, 137.)
You can see the word "advance" is used in the last quote similar to how Luther in the first quote says Jesus is "wanting" in "understanding" on the Law which obviously Luther thought only Paul supposedly understood was abrogated. Jesus is therefore supposedly behind Paul in wisdom and inspiration, so Luther implied. The driving wedge was Jesus' adherence to the Law.
Luther explained not only why he prefers Paul over Jesus of the Gospels, but also why he picks Paul over James who is also in the Bible -- James and Paul too contradict:
Many sweat hard at reconciling James with Paul, but unsuccessfully. ‘Faith justifies [Romans 3:28] stands in flat contradiction of ‘faith that does not justify’ [James 2:24.] If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I’ll put my doctor’s cap on him and let him call me a fool....Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it [James] ascribes righteousness to works, and says Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac [James 2:21], though St. Paul, on the contrary teaches in Romans 4 [vv. 2-3], that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15 [v.6]. [Quoted in Jason Von Vliet, Living Waters from Ancient Springs: Essays in Honor of Cornelis Van Dam (Wipf & Stock Publishers 2011) at 103.] [FOOTNOTE 1]
FOOTNOTE 1: By the way, Paul misread Genesis 15:6. Abraham attributed God's giving him a baby in old age to the righteousness of God. It was not God attributing righteousness to Abraham for believing God would do this. See link. END FOOTNOTE.
Hi Anonymous
Well, you appear to be asking how to overcome the objection that the Bible we received must be accepted in its present form because God supposedly would not allow this to exist unless it was His will. Am I close to identifying the point you anticipate will be raised against ignoring Paul?
Of course, this objection has no Bible support itself. It is just a human doctrine.
It may be influenced by the mistranslation of 2 Tim. 3:16 -- rendered as "All scripture is inspired of God." But in Greek, the KJV inferred IS there where it did not belong. It truly reads "all scripture inspired of God is useful," etc. See link.
First, it was always absurd to say all "scripture" -- a word simply meaning a writing - is inspired, as that would mean my email here, and yours to me would be inspired because they are writings too. This is why Tyndale in 1536 rendered this from the Greek -- as was the Latin translation too -- only that "all inspired scripture is profitable," etc. Id.
More important is the following information to challenge the human supposition behind this objection you allude to:
1. In 1885, the King James Bible removed several books that were included in the 1611 KJV Bible. See link.
So did God make a mistake for 274 years? or did He allow us to make a mistake for 274 years? It necessarily is the latter, because God does not make mistakes.
2. Also, reading Jesus over Paul is a proper Protestant hermeneutic if we follow even Luther's principle of how to read canon when one passage contradicts another. We just make a different choice than Luther did on who is our sole teacher.
When Luther started the reformation, and did not merely correct Catholic errors on indulgencies and baptism for justification, Luther relied upon Paul to change salvation doctrine to faith alone. Luther did so by claiming Paul was in "advance" of Jesus and Moses. Luther recognized that Paul contradicted both. Thus, Luther for the first 17 years of the Reformation taught that it is proper we read Paul, and we can ignore the Jesus speaking in Mark, Luke & John who was "behind" Paul in wisdom and inspiration.
First, read this from Luther:
“There is no man living on Earth Who knows how to distinguish between The law and the gospel … even the man Jesus Christ was so wanting in Understanding when he was in the vineyard that an angel had to console him though he was a doctor from heaven he was strengthened by the angel.” (Luther, Luther Works 54, 127.)
Second, read this from Luther in the 1522 Preface to the NT: "the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke." See "Luther's Criticism of Scripture," The Bibliotheca sacra (Dallas Theological Seminary: 1906) Volume 63 at 18, citing Luther Preface to the New Testament from E.A. lxii, 137.)
You can see the word "advance" is used in the last quote similar to how Luther in the first quote says Jesus is "wanting" in "understanding" on the Law which obviously Luther thought only Paul supposedly understood was abrogated. Jesus is therefore supposedly behind Paul in wisdom and inspiration, so Luther implied. The driving wedge was Jesus' adherence to the Law.
Luther explained not only why he prefers Paul over Jesus of the Gospels, but also why he picks Paul over James who is also in the Bible -- James and Paul too contradict:
Many sweat hard at reconciling James with Paul, but unsuccessfully. ‘Faith justifies [Romans 3:28] stands in flat contradiction of ‘faith that does not justify’ [James 2:24.] If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I’ll put my doctor’s cap on him and let him call me a fool....Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it [James] ascribes righteousness to works, and says Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac [James 2:21], though St. Paul, on the contrary teaches in Romans 4 [vv. 2-3], that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15 [v.6]. [Quoted in Jason Von Vliet, Living Waters from Ancient Springs: Essays in Honor of Cornelis Van Dam (Wipf & Stock Publishers 2011) at 103.] [FOOTNOTE 1]
FOOTNOTE 1: By the way, Paul misread Genesis 15:6. Abraham attributed God's giving him a baby in old age to the righteousness of God. It was not God attributing righteousness to Abraham for believing God would do this. See link. END FOOTNOTE.
Комментарии