The Apostle Paul, the writer of 14 books of the 27 in the New Testament, is called sexist, bigoted, homophobic, and more. Many claim Jesus and disregard the Apostle Paul. Many have degraded Paul’s writings as though his writings have no place in the Bible. They set Paul aside despite being the Apostle who started churches from Syria to Italy if not Spain also. His words have been foundational to Christian theology. His words make up 1 Corinthians 13 known as the love chapter read at so many weddings. Yet, he is supposedly sexist for revealing God’s birthright for men to be spiritual leaders (1 Tim. 2:11ff) and by showing the depravity of a society that accepts homosexuality (Rom. 1:24ff). Some don’t like the church government presented in Paul’s words (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1), because there are no ruling preaching pastors who are not elders and there are no committees, congregation votes, archbishops, or popes. Do you see what is happening here?
Here’s the truth. If someone rejects Christ’s words given through the Apostle Paul, then they reject Christ. As Paul said regarding the Apostles of Christ, “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches” (1 Cor. 2:13). This is just as Jesus said that He would give His words to His Apostles (John 17:8), and if they listened to Him, then they would listen to His Apostles (John 15:20). Jesus also said that He would send His Spirit to instruct them in all truth (John 14:26, 16:12-13). Because of this, Paul was wrote by Christ’s Spirit, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul was converted by Christ (Gal. 1:15-17), claimed revelation from Christ (Gal. 1:11-12), preached the gospel (Gal. 1:23), received fellowship from the Apostles in his preaching (Gal. 1:18-19, 2:2, 9), and even so that the Apostle Peter was corrected by the Apostle Paul (Gal. 2:11).
Not accepting the writings of Paul also means not accepting the rest of the writings in the New Testament. If you don’t accept Paul, then you can’t accept the Apostle Peter who accepted the writings of Paul as scripture (2 Pet. 3:16), and then certainly not the Gospel of Mark or the writings of John, which Peter accepted (2 Pet. 1:16-21). With Paul’s writings also would go the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul, agreed with Paul, and Paul quoted Luke as scripture (1 Tim. 5:18, Luke 10:7). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the Gospels mentioned in Luke 1:1-3. This leaves only 2 books, James and Jude. Jude closely resembles 2 Peter 2, so that wouldn’t make since to keep that one. James was also an Apostle with Peter and among the 12 (Gal. 1:18-2:10), so James could not be considered. Again, rejecting the writings of Paul means rejecting the whole New Testament. With the New Testament would go all the direct words of Jesus found throughout the Gospels and His other few words in Acts and Revelation. This is not to exclude that all of the New Testament would be Christ’s words through His Spirit. Now, there goes the Christian faith and the foundation of the Apostles and prophets.
Remember these words. Jesus said, “For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15), and “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8-9). If people believed this, they would not remove from the Bible what they do not highly esteem and they would not consider their thoughts higher than God’s thoughts.
Considering to reject Jesus’ words given through the Apostles and prophets, then this is all or nothing. People need to get up their prejudices toward the Bible, which are based on their personal morality. Homosexuality is a sin and it is contrary to God’s ideal (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Who would know better than God? Who would know better about the roles of men and women other than God who made man and woman in His image? True Christian discipleship consists of essential virtues of humility, meekness, and submission for which the world mocks and scoffs at thought of such a virtue. Humble submission to God is the virtue of true faith trusting in the God of Jesus Christ. By this, Christians trust God to work things out through His providence. Without meekness, there is no real faith, and this is what this discussion is all about. Let’s submit to the words of Christ delivered through His Apostles and prophets and not consider our own thoughts greater than God and His Son.
Point-by-Point
1. Paul did not start the church of Syria. A church at Antioch (Syria) already existed when Paul joined the church. Peter is the founder of the church of Antioch. Scott suffers from assumptions gleaned from Paulinism that just assumes Paul was a major figure of the church's early evangelism. But on critical careful historical analysis it is not true as to all major centers of Christianity, including Antioch and Italy. Please see "Paul or James's Church: Greatest Evangelist?" at our website.
2. Paul's words are supposedly "foundational to Christian theology," Scott says. But this was only true for the early Lutheran phase from 1517-1530. Otherwise, Christ's words preceded those of Paul, and Jesus was foundational to the early church, even for centuries after Paul. See again "Paul or James' Church: Greatest Evangelism" at our website. From 1530 onward, Luther himself, and Melancthon his successor, tried to evade their early Paulinism. They changed from faith alone to double justification, but after Melancthon died, the sola fidists took back control, and in 1580 turned back Lutheranism to Pauline faith-alone doctrine. This turned all later evangelical Christianity to Pauline faith alone doctrine with minor skirmishes to retain Jesus' doctrine of obedience. See Preface to Jesus' Words on Salvation. Interstingly, Scott comes from one of the dissenter churches - the Church of Christ -- that say Paul insisted upon loss of salvation for disobedience, and Scott cites this as his view of Paul's teaching. But it does not predominate among evangelicals. Scott is a heretic among 90% of evangelicals. Yet, here Scott and I agree. Paul does sometimes teach obedience. But I unlike Scott cannot dispute Paul teaches faith alone in Romans 4:3-5, Romans 8:1, and a few other verses -- thus I see contradiction within Paul's own "difficult to understand" writings when I assume Scott does not see it.
3. Was Paul sexist? This is a kind of off-tangent issue. Scott may be thinking of someone other than me. I do say that if Paul is inspired, we would have to accept his commands on the fairer's sex's duties as from God. But Paul tells the single not to marry; he tells women not to pray without a head covering; he says widows under 60 are not entitled to the widow charity; and women must not speak or ask questions in Church but asks their husbands at home. I only point out these commands do not sound much like the Master's approach. See my article "Paul on Women and Sex." There is not much more to be said. Scott responds to such criticism by himself not saying much: "Yet, he is supposedly sexist for revealing God’s birthright for men to be spiritual leaders (1 Tim. 2:11ff)." Given God made Deborah a leader and judge over Israel, one must simply ask whether Scott chose the right point to defend. Paul contradicts the an example from the Original Testament we have of women in leadership: Deborah was prophet (hence a spiritual leader) and judge (thus national spiritual ruler). The notion women can never lead is found nowhere else in the Bible other than in Paul.
4. Scott next says if you reject Paul, you reject Christ. Why? Because
Jesus said that He would give His words to His Apostles (John 17:8), and if they listened to Him, then they would listen to His Apostles (John 15:20).
Well, this is true, but is Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ to which these words apply? As I have pointed out, but Scott does not address, Paul does not have 2 witnesses to confirm he was an apostle of Jesus Christ. In the three vision accounts in Acts, the "Jesus" whom Paul meets only says Paul will be a MARTUS -- a witness, and never says Paul will be an apostle of Jesus Christ.
Incidentally, the word apostle in Greek means messenger. So Paul may be a messenger from the church at Antioch in Acts 14:4 but scholars agree this does not imply Paul was an "Apostle of Jesus Christ." This is especially because Luke prior to that point makes it clear who the 12th was -- Matthias -- in Acts 1.
And Jesus elsewhere said there are 12 apostles and no more. First, Jesus made this clear during His earthly ministry. Jesus said the role of the twelve apostles was to "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:28.) After Matthias replaced Judas, John, the Apostle, wrote:
The city was built on twelve foundation stones. On each of the stones was written the name of one of the Lamb's twelve apostles. (Rev. 21:14 CEV.)
So after Judas fell away and was lost, they added Matthias to bring their number back to twelve. (Acts 1:22-26.) When apostles were martyred later, such as Apostle James (the brother of John), mentioned in Acts 12:2, the apostles did not replace him. Had they done so, this would bring their number to thirteen in the resurrection ruling over the New Jerusalem. The apostles must have seen the mis-match which a thirteenth apostle would represent in fulfilling their role as twelve judges over the twelve tribes into eternity.
Thus, the commands to which Scott refers are not applicable to Paul. A self-serving claim by Paul that he was an apostle, if he meant it with a capital "A" does not qualify. First, Jesus said that if He alone claimed He was son of God, His witness would not be true. Jesus' insisted upon the 2 witness principle, and that self-serving claims do not suffice. Second, Paul used the term "Apostle" loosely to refer to James and Junia (see "Paul's Loose Use of the Term Apostle"), and thus using it upon himself was not intended to include himself in the 12. Thus, when Jesus said the 12 would remember His words with inspiration, this did not include Paul. When Jesus said those who reject the message of the 12 based upon the true Christ's words were in danger, this does not apply to Paul.
5. Scott Says Paul is Inspired to Say He is Inspired. Incidentally, Scott's relies upon inadmissible evidence that we must accept Paul speaking for Jesus rests. It rests upon a self-serving claim which does not match the 2 witness principle that Jesus said applied to himself. (Jesus at His baptism had the voice of Yahweh and Holy Spirit descend in front of multiple witnesses, and at the transfigurtion, Moses and Elijah were further witnesses in front of two witnesses -- Peter and John). Scott does not realize this and cites such self-serving evidence from Paul:
Because of this, Paul was wrote by Christ’s Spirit, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
There is an obvious fallascious claim that "Paul wrote by Christ's spirit" in this statement. For that is the issue to be proven, and not assumed, as Scott is doing. Scott is well-meaning, but Scott shows examples of not following logical argument. This again is the bootstrap fallacy -- assuming as a premise of your argument --Paul wrote by Christ's Spirit -- what is your conclusion which you are attempting to prove -- "Paul wrote by Christ's spirit."
6. Second Peter Says Paul is Inspired. Second Peter does not say Paul is inspired. Rather, it says Paul is misconstrued as "other writings" are misconstrued. This is only as strong as the premise (a) that Second Peter is truly Peter writing; and (b) that "writings" translated as "scripture' has the meaning of the Holy Scripture. Neither premise is true, as I detail elsewhere. Incidentally, Paul indeed is misconstrued as other writings, but the author of 2d Peter says it is Paul's fault because Paul writes with words "difficult to understand." Hence, in full context, 2d Peter is a criticism of taking Paul's written words as an authority rather than any implication that Paul is inspired.
7. Domino Effect. Scott then says because Peter accepted Mark and John, citing 2 Peter 3:16-17 (which says no such thing), then if Paul is not Holy Scripture, neither is Mark nor John. But 2 Peter 3:16-17 does not mention Mark or John. It mentions "writings." It does not mention any gospel writing specifically. Thus, the premise to support Scott's conclusion is missing any proof. Scott's argument, to be clear is:
and then certainly not the Gospel of Mark or the writings of John, which Peter accepted (2 Pet. 1:16-21). With Paul’s writings also would go the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul, agreed with Paul, and Paul quoted Luke as scripture (1 Tim. 5:18, Luke 10:7). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the Gospels mentioned in Luke 1:1-3. This leaves only 2 books, James and Jude.
I don't wish to appear unkind, but this is silly nonsense. Rigorous logic requires proving each premise. Scott needs to go back and find proof for his conclusions. He cannot.
8. Scott Does Not Address The Real Issues.The issues about Paul are not about whether Second Peter calls Paul "scripture." Even if Peter wrote it, the apostles were not 100% inspired unless quoting Jesus's earthly ministry (so Jesus said), or else how can Paul say Peter erred in 2d Galatians about eating with Gentiles? (So Paul said.) Or how did Peter not realize an angel released him from prison until it was all over in Acts? Nor are the real issues about Paul whether he is sexist. Scott has raised a series of irrelevant red herrings to divert the reader from the real issues.
What are the proper questions whether someone is a true prophet / spokeperson for God? If you want to understand the correct Berean-testing questions about Paul, I suggest you read Chapter One to Jesus' Words Only. We must start with whether Paul unwittingly was a false prophet by teaching us not to follow the Law. This is the Bible's test for inspiration in Deut. 13:1-5 (as well as Isaiah 8:20) -- which states specifically that signs and wonders are not sufficient to prove one is inspired. See Jesus Words Only - chapter one.
I wish to emphasize I regard Scott highly, and think he is on a good road spiritually. I think he can study how to make logical claims better. I want the best challenges that can be found. This is not about me being right. This is about finding God's truth with all of us working together to find it diligently asking the aid of the Holy Spirit in prayer! Our Lord Jesus too wants us to be unified in mind, and to do that, we must be kind and thoughtful toward one another.
Blessings, D.