Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Jesus Paul
Among the sheep and goats who both call Jesus Lord, the group who serves Jesus by feeding the brethren in need, clothing them, and giving them water, goes to heaven. The other group who calls Jesus Lord but who fails to provide such charity are, as a consequence, sent to "eternal fire." (Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Matt. 25:32 et seq.). A faith that ignores the poor brethren is "dead" and "cannot save." ((Jas. 2:14-17).) "Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matt. 7:19).
Anyone who "shall call" on the name of the Lord shall be saved. ((Rom. 10:13).) This is permanent, and no condition subsequent can be put on this that you must be charitable or have fruit thereafter. Otherwise, it is salvation by works. (Romans 4:4, 14; Eph. 2:8-9.) Hence, it cannot be true that if the goats, in fact, ever once called on the name of the Lord that they should be sent to hell. James' statement that paraphrases the principle of (Matt. 25:32) et seq. contradicts Paul, and we are not to believe even an angel from heaven if he should contradict Paul. (Gal. 1:8).
"1 keep telling you the one who keeps on listening to my teaching and keeps on believing in the one who sent me keeps on having eternal life and does not come into condemnation but has departed out of death into life." (John 5:24.) For the basis to this translation, see pages 167-70.
Once in Christ, there is now no condemnation. This entry is by a one-time faith. (Rom. 10:9). As a result, freedom from condemnation is not secured by any continuity in listening to Jesus' teaching or believing in God-theFather.
Faith in the Pauline Sense?
When you abandon column one-the words of the historical Jesus-and replace His teaching with column two-the words of Paul, you have a radical separation. Yet, the one following Paul is told they are following Jesus. They label themselves a Christian. They claim they trust in Christ, and are saved. Yet, they are not following the words of Jesus Christ on how to be saved.
doing when they follow Paul? They are following an abstract idea of what they want Jesus to be for them without a willingness to actually accept Jesus' commands and teachings. John Sobrino explains that the question comes down to:
whether this Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus or some vague, abstract Spirit that is nothing more than the sublimated embodiment of the natural 'religious' person's desires and yearnings. If it is the latter, then it is not only different from, but actually contrary to, the Spirit of Jesus. 14
Thus, if people are asked to "accept Christ" without being told about the message of the historical Christ, how can we be sure that "Christ" is not just an abstract symbol for them? We cannot. It is a situation reminiscent of what Jesus said was happening with the Pharisees and their followers.
(13) But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter. (15) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves. (Mat 23:13, 15)(ASV)
The Pharisees were highly evangelistic. Jesus said do not mistake this as proof they are from God. They were blind guides. People wanted to enter the kingdom, and the Pharisees were abroad evangelizing them. Yet, the Pharisees had a false teaching that made their proselytes not enter the kingdom of God.
What did Jesus say they were falsely teaching? Jesus said the Law has two components: the weighty and less weighty. The Pharisees focused on the easy stuff. They ignored preaching the hard stuff from the Law. Jesus said:
14.John Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads left undone the weightier matters of the Law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. (Matt. 23:23)(ASV)
The modem Pauline pastor leaves out all the hard commands of the
Law and of Jesus, just like the Pharisees left out all the hard
commands of the Law. Instead, the Pharisees watered down the Law
to the simple stuff. Jesus was very serious about the Law being
followed in toto, and called them blind guides. We have followed
Paul, and stripped all the Law away. Paul's solution was to leave
both the weighty and less weighty matters undone, replaced by the
principle that "all things are lawful, but not all things are
expedient." 15 No one can say this was Jesus' message. With Paul's
doctrines predominating, we have reduced everything down to faith,
and left the Law, justice and mercy undone. (We have retained only
tithing, thus repeating virtually identically the error of the
Pharisees.) 16 When those are removed, one may legitimately
question whether we have even done faith justice.
Jesus has a warning for those who teach Paul's contrary message to what Jesus taught:
Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the
judgment of hell? (Mat 23:33)(ASV)
15.See "The New Morality In Its Place" on page 80 et seq.
16.Ironically, most Paulinist churches revive one command from the 'Old Testament' - the duty to tithe. This is the only command from the 'Old Testament' that supposedly was not abrogated. (Randy Alcorn, Money, Possessions and Eternity (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 2003) at 174-75,181.) Thus, we repeat the same error as the Pharisees: we are big on tithing, but not on the weightier matters of the Law. This is why you will most often hear the Pharisees' wrong doctrine miscategorized as if they taught a strict adherence to all without Luther's direct involvement.
By 1524, the Evangelical Brotherhood (aka "the Brethren") movement grew to the size of 250,000 people. (Schaf.) They had a Jesus' Words Only focus. They relied primarily upon Carlstadt's focus on the Lord Jesus' doctrine.
Carlstadt insisted that the Gospels about Jesus were more important than the epistles (of Paul). Carlstadt rebuffed Luther on the alleged invalidity of James' Epistle. Carlstadt argued James' Epistle cannot be shuffled aside for teaching faith and works at odds with Paul. (See page 470.) Carlstadt also insisted that Jesus reaffirmed continuation of the Law of Moses, even while Luther insisted that Paul abrogated the
Law. (See page 74.) Carlstadt taught Jesus wanted the less
1 8
weighty and weightier matters of the Law to be followed.
How could Carlstadt insist the Law of Moses was still valid? Because Carlstadt had a different view of PauVs Epistles when compared to the Gospels. As Durant notes:
17.Ross Vander Meulen, Essay on Revolution 'The College's Role in Revolution
Later in the same year [1520] Carlstadt issued a little book- De Canonicis Scripturis Libellus - exalting the Bible over popes, councils and traditions, and the Gospels over Epistles. If Luther had followed this last line, Protestantism might have been less Pauline, Augustinian, and Predestinarian. 19
Luther and Carlstadt became embittered over James' Epistle. Luther wanted the Epistle of James removed from inspired canon because it conflicted with Paul. (See page 247.) However, Carlstadt insisted that one cannot toss out James, as Luther had done, by relying upon Paul's doctrines as the criteria to determine valid canon.
[A]s early as 1520, Luther's Wittenberg University co-reformer Bodenstein von Carlstadt... condemned Luther's rejection of fames and argued that one must appeal either to known apostolic authorship or to universal historical acceptance (omnium consensus] as the test of a book's canonicity, not to internal doctrinal considerations [of a conflict with Paul], (Carlstadt, De canonicis,Scripturis libellus (Wittenberg. 1520) para, 50.) 20
Carlstadt was saying Paul's words were not a pennissible basis to close off James' words. Carlstadt resisted Paul's doctrines being used to test what is canon.
In response, Luther from his place of hiding tried demanding his old allies push out Carlstadt. The rift on the Law, James and Paul was too much. In 1521, Luther wrote a savage attack on Carlstadt entitled The New Judas.
-
Dr. Barnas Spears summarizes in Life of Luther (Philadelphia: 1850) at 401: "Carlstadt differed essentially from Luther in regard to the use to be made of the Old Testament. With him, the law of Moses was still binding. Luther, on the contrary, had a strong aversion to what he calls a legal and Judaizing religion. Carlstadt held to the divine authority of the Sabbath from the Old Testament; Luther believed Christians were free to observe any day as a Sabbath, provided they be uniform in observing it."
-
Wil Durant, The Reformation (N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1944) at 352.
-
John Warwick Montgomery, "Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ," God's Inerrant Word sacrament of the supper. In the south of Germany and in Switzerland, Carlstadt found more adherents than Luther.
(Dr. Bamas Spears, Life of Luther (Philadelphia: 1850) at 403.)
Yet, due to Luther's pamphlets, in 1524 Carlstadt was expelled from Saxony. "[H]e Carlstadt was crushed by the civil power, which was on the side of Luther." (Id. at 400.)
Then what was Luther to do about the 250,000 Protestants who were influenced by Carlstadt's Jesus-focused doctrine? The Brethren were willing to sacrifice home and comfort to fight for religious freedom. They wanted to obey Jesus' words in all things. They did not want to pay taxes to the Catholic church any longer. It was morally offensive. They wanted to operate their own churches. (Scaff, History of
21."The Eucharist," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 7; Bax, The Peasant War, ch. 3.) Yet, they were unaware that their emphasis on the Jesus-focused doctrines taught by Carlstadt would bring them into conflict with Luther.
In 1524, Luther published a tract which told Catholic rulers to kill the Brethren as 'dogs' because they violated Paul's directive to obey rulers as God's ministers (in (Rom. 13:1) et seq.) Yet, the Brethren were all Protestants! With Luther's blessings, 100,000 of them (with women and children in significant numbers) were brutally slain in 1524-25. (Scaff.) Luther rationalized this result based on Paul, claim
ing "God has forbidden insurrection....' But was paying tithes to a deficient church system the better choice? When faced with a force holding a civil power urging a contrary principle to God's law, Peter and the apostles said "we ought to obey God rather than men."(Acts 5:29.)
Thus, while no one can say every member of the Evangelical Brotherhood was pure, at least the cause they died for is still not lost. Their cause was the cause of Christ. The cause of the early Reformation. The cause Carlstadt was persecuted for defending. It was the cause that said Jesus' words in the Gospels are more important than Paul's words.
Fortunately, Luther came around later - denouncing in 1537 his own earlier doctrines of antinomianism. Luther insisted the Ten Commandments applies to all Christians. Their violation impacts salvation. (See page 106.) Luther even said this: "To abolish the Law is therefore to abolish the truth of God.' Leaving Paul out-to-dry, Luther said anyone who would "discard the Law would effectively put an end to our obedience to God." (Id. at 32.) Yet, this same Luther earlier said in 1525 Paul "abolished the Sabbath" and declared all the Law "abolished," even the moral law. (See pp. 74, 76.)
-
Martin Luther, An Earnest Exhortation for all Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion, in Luther Works, (Philadelphia Edition)(1955) III, 201-222, quotes from 206-213, 215-16.
-
Martin Luther, Antinomicm Theses (1537), reprinted as Don't Tell Me That From Martin Luther's Antinomian Theses