Robert said
Paul’s views won out in the end and became orthodoxy in the increasingly gentile church of the first few centuries. I’m fascinated by Paul’s views, but I don’t ascribe to them. I try to understand him as a messianic Jew, before he was Lutheranized, but I am neither a Pauline Christian nor even an orthodox Christian in any conventional sense. I do think Paul knew a little bit about the historical Jesus and his teachings, and these had some importance to him, but it paled in comparison to the resurrected Christ whom he believed he had come to know and who would return soon from heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.
Same here. 😉
I’m happy to have found my way to this forum. My interest in Paul was piqued a few months back in another online group which was following a lesson series about Acts. A contingent of the group was vociferously anti-Paul, as Bart Ehrman notes the most controversial of apostles. I have no strong leaning either way, but given the significance of Paul’s theology in the subsequent development of the church, I felt compelled to start learning more about him and and using that knowledge as an opportunity to explore my own spirituality, realizing from the outset that like Robert I am not a Pauline Christian.
I am a Unitarian Universalist Christian, which is about as unorthodox as one can be and still belong to a formal religious denomination.
Acts is not a good place to try to interpret the historical Paul. The forged letters have had more of an influence on subsequent interpretation than Paul’s authentic letters since the authentic letters are constantly read through the lens of the forgeries. Consequently, the Paul of Church tradition is a creation of that tradition.
I was raised in a church that constantly denounced what they called a “works” religion, defined as putting personal acts over faith. This view dominates American evangelical fundamentalism. The inevitable result was that what mattered most was adherence to doctrine rather than any attempt at personal ethics. It’s hard to see how the Jesus of Matthew 25 – or the historical Paul – would not be horrified by that viewpoint.
The historical Paul is one thing, and the authentic letters versus the non-Pauline letters. I’m not sure how to reach a conclusion that the authentic Pauline letters have been seen through the lens of the non-authentic. Rather, I imagine they have been influential altogether to about the same extent.
I am interested in Paul’s theology, though as Bart Ehrman points out in Peter, Paul, and Mary, even the authentic letters are occasional, addressing specific issues (mostly) in individual congregations. They do not present a comprehensive view of Paul’s theology, leaving us to draw speculative conclusions, perhaps supplemented with direct revelations from Paul in prayer, to borrow a leaf from his own witness.
One thing I keep in mind is that the non-Pauline letters remain Christian scripture and offer much spiritual goodness, in the same way that the gospels and Acts have much to offer, despite anonymous authorship and some historical claims which are wide of the literal mark. These are stories early Christians told each other, which doubtless have some basis in actual events, but were equally inspired by subjective experiences of the divine. They are the essential Christian mythos, being no less true for Christians regardless of their literal factuality.
One needn’t read these once and have done with them, or read them analytically to reach scholarly conclusions about Paul and other early Christians. They can be read repeatedly, and reverently, as a spiritual practice, for spiritual formation and as a medium through which God continuously speaks with us. A lamp to our feet and a light to our path. If we choose.
Hey Robert, We all agree now on all aspects that we discussed which is great and huge step forward for me. Though, I want to hear your opinion about one thing.
We agreed that paul is not preaching “faith alone”, but what he is preaching is he believes “faith” would cause “holy spirit in our hearts” which would cause kindness/love and this combination together is what would bring a salvation. I am sure you agree with me on this as we talked about this in previous replies.
Question 1: Imagine someone who has faith, but still does immoral things – doesn’t do good things – doesn’t love neighbour and so on – in Paul’s opinion, this person will not enter the kingdom even though he has faith – In Paul’s opinion, that’s not faith as he believes that true/real faith would definitely bring kindness/love. Do you agree ?
Question 2: This is the continuation of my Question 1: Just for an hypothetical example, assume that someone still believes that Christ was really crucified and died for our sins, but that person still does immoral things – I don’t think that’s hypothetical example because I look around, see lots of christians, they say they have faith 100% but they still don’t act with kindness – What happens to these people ? do they get a salvation ? In paul’s opinion, I guess they don’t get a salvation, do you agree ?
Question 3: Assume the atheists(I am as well – at least now) – I have seen lots of atheists that really have moral things built into the heart – they don’t believe in Christ but they still love people/neighbours, act as kindness and so on. What happens to these people ? do they get a salvation or not ? From the Galatian’s letter, it’s not easy to figure this out as Paul doesn’t mention anything related to this but if you read Romans, in Romans:2:14-15, he clearly mentions that even if one is completely unfamiliar with the law, as long as that person has built-in conscience and so on in his heart, god will consider all this. I am wondering what happens to such people that still have no faith in Christ but still follow good deeds ?
Question 4: I’m starting to become more curious about “Sola fide”. First question I have is if this “sola fide” doctrine only emphesizes the faith and NOT following the moral laws. As in, Does “Sola fide” preach that if one has faith alone but doesn’t follow/do the good deeds, one will still be given a salvation ?
Question 5: It’s widely accepted that this “sola fide” was brought by Martin Luther but I am not sold on the idea that Luther was preaching that only faith without good deeds would bring a salvation. I think Martin was really agreeing with Paul – as we agreed, Paul was not preaching the “faith alone” doctrine, but “faith + good deeds” combination which I believe that Martin Luther was also agreeing with it. If you agree with this, then I am failing to understand how “sola fide” doctrine actually ended up wide-spread ? If it was not Martin Luther, then who was it ?
Question 6: As you said Robert, some protestants took it to extreme and believe that faith alone without good deeds is enough for salvation(which paul doesn’t agree). How did these protestants actually end up in this doctrine ?
Thank you.
Robert, Thanks so much for your opinions. So much highly appreciated.
What’s interesting is “faith alone” doctrine that Martin used or any other people have been motivated by Paul – i.e these people read Paul and learned from it. It’s also important that it’s easy to read Paul’s thoughts and immediatelly think that he is preaching “faith alone” doctrine while in reality, it’s not that simple. Thomas Aquinas seems to be using Rom 3:28, but it’s highly possible that it’s Thomas’s fault to treat Paul’s idea as “faith alone”.
Bart D. Ehrman, _Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife_ (2020), 326pp., on 290
Harkening back to Origin, and Paul before him, these committed believers maintain that in the end no one will be able to resist the love of God.
Good will triumph over evil.
All that is wrong will be made right.
And somehow, in some way, and at some time, everyone will be saved.
“if you want to argue about the dating of Matthew’s gospel”
Neither quoting that, nor quoting this FiskeMiles, means I “want to argue” here, in this thread, “about the dating of Matthew’s gospel”:
[FiskeMiles]”The gospel of Matthew was written decades after Paul’s death, so I’m not sure how it is helpful to elucidate Paul’s theology of salvation”
What purpose is served by this court session involving books?:
Daniel 7 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
Daniel 12 (Young’s Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 ‘And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head,
who is standing up for the sons of thy people,
and there hath been a time of distress,
such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time,
and at that time do thy people escape,
every one who is found written in the book.
2 ‘And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake,
some to life age-during,
and some to reproaches — to abhorrence age-during.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse,
and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever.
Revelation 20 (Young’s Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
11 And I saw a great white throne,
and Him who is sitting upon it,
from whose face the earth and the heaven did flee away,
and place was not found for them;
12 and I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,
and scrolls were opened,
and another scroll was opened,
which is that of the life,
and the dead were judged out of the things written in the scrolls — according to their works;
3 and the sea did give up those dead in it,
and the death and the hades did give up the dead in them,
and they were judged, each one according to their works;
14 and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire — this [is] the second death;
15 and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.
Andrew Hronich, _Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of _Apokatastasis__ (2023), 377pp., on XVI
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
Perhaps the watershed moment really came not when I read Rob Bell, but when I read the Apostle Paul.
It was simply an everyday devotional, reading through the Epistle to the Romans, when I gawked at Paul’s statement in the fifth chapter.
To this day, I have labeled in my Bible one short question I had from reading Paul’s words in Romans 5.
The clear and simple reading of the passage, as well as the obvious parallel Paul is attempting to make, suggests universal reconciliation.
Thus, I wrote the question in the corner of my Bible, “Does Paul mean that all men will be justified?”
I immediately turned to Calvinist commentaries on Romans 5, specifically the viewpoints of John Piper, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul.
However, for reasons I will later delineate, I found their arguments to be completely unsatisfactory.
The more I began to read Paul, the more I found him to be a mystical universalist.
“you’re an Amazon AI, right?”
You’re welcome to believe that, if you wish.
Might such an AI mention Alibris?
1 Timothy 1:15 (NIV), ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners–
of whom I am the worst.
1 Corinthians 15:22 (NIV), ** you do not have permission to see this link **
For as in Adam all die,
so in Christ all will be made alive.
Romans 11:32 (NIV), ** you do not have permission to see this link **
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
1 Timothy 4:10 (NIV), ** you do not have permission to see this link **
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
1 Corinthians 15 (Peshitta Holy Bible)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
20 But now The Messiah is risen from among the dead
and is the first fruits of those who sleep.
21 Just as by a man death came,
in this way also by a man the dead come to life.
22 For just as by Adam all people die,
in this way also by The Messiah they all live;
23 Each person in his order;
The Messiah was the first fruits;
after this, those who are The Messiah’s at his arrival.
24 And then the end will come,
when he will deliver The Kingdom to God The Father,
when he will destroy every Ruler and every Authority and all Powers.
25 For he is going to reign
until all his enemies will be set under his feet,
26 And the last enemy death shall be destroyed.
27 For he brought all things to submission under his feet.
But when it says,
“All things are subjected to him”,
it is understood that it excludes him who subjected all things to him.
28 And when all is subjected to him,
then the Son shall be subject to him
who subjected all things to him,
that God might be all in all.
“you’re an Amazon AI, right?”
You’re welcome to believe that, if you wish.
Might such an AI mention Alibris?
You better run it by the Jeff Bezos android, carefully constructed at the secret Russian base in the mountains outside Las Vegas where the Beyonce android was also constructed.
You know what gave you away David? No sense of humor.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)