christianity2.0

Table of Contents

Circular Logic to Obscure Jesus ' Words

Circular Logic to Obscure Jesus ' Words

The following are examples of circular logic made to force Jesus' words in the Synoptics fit Pauline interpretation. The authors insist boldly, openly but illogically that Jesus must be interpreted to fit Paul's theology. Never once does the fact of contradiction draw the commentators to question Paul's validity in canon.

"The interpretation of the parable [of the Prodigal by Jesus]
requires deduction compatible with known doctrine [i.e., Paul]."
(R.B. Thieme Jr., The Prodigal Son [1974] at 1.)

"In other words, once [eternal] security [primarily deduced from
Paul] is established, there really are 'no problem passages.'
There are only Scriptures [i.e., statements by Jesus apparently to
the contrary] to properly interpret in light of an already
established doctrine [i.e., Paul's teaching.]" [Ankerberg
Theological Research Institute News Magazine [Vol. 4 No. 7] (July
1997] at 16.]

"In Mt. 25:34, we find that inheriting the kingdom is conditioned
[by Jesus] on obedience and service to the King, a condition far
removed from the New Testament [i.e., Pauline] teaching of
justification by faith alone for entrance into heaven.  [Thus, it
must mean something other than what it appears to mean.]" (Dillow,
Reign of the Servant Kings [1992] at 72.]

These statements all share blatant illogic. The commentator interprets what Jesus is saying from the theological system of Paul. Thus, the very point of whether Paul is valid or not is avoided by rewriting Jesus' words to fit Paul. It is known as the bootstrap fallacy. Instead, the very issue raised by the contradiction is whether Paul belongs among inspired canon. Rather than face the unthinkable, bootstrap illogic is used to demand the reader accept any spin of Jesus that erases Jesus' contradiction of Paul.