Examples of Paulinism Defended

Here are various defenders that Paul's Gospel of Grace supplants Jesus's Gospel of Salvation, and justifies ignoring Jesus's words or regarding words in Matthew attributed to Jesus as inauthentic.

Pettingill & Torrey, 1997

In 1001 Bible Questions Answered, two evangelical scholars -- Pettingill and Torrey -- write that Jesus's Gospel is not to be taught until the tribulation; for now we are only to teach what Paul taught -- a gospel of grace.

We are convinced that this [i.e., the belief that the church was commissioned to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom] is in error. It would be a strange thing to find the Church's commission in the Kingdom Gospel. (William Pettingill and R.A. Torrey, 1001 Bible Questions Answered (Inspirational Press, 1997) at 120.)

They continue:

I have long been convinced, and have taught that the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 is primarily applicable to the kingdom rather than to the Church. If this were kept in mind we should not fall into confusion regarding our marching orders, which are found in Acts 1:8, with details in the Epistles to the Churches. The Matthew commission [i.e., the command to preach Jesus's commands] will come into force for the Jewish Remnant after the Church is caught away. (Id., 1001 Bible Questions Answered, at 127.)

But it gets worse:

Mark's Gospel, like Matthew's and Luke's is primarily a kingdom book, and I am satisfied that none of them contains the Church's marching orders -- not even the so-called Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20....To be sure, we are to preach the gospel to every creature but what Gospel? The only gospel known to the synoptics was the gospel of the kingdom. Our gospel of the kingdom [i.e., the one that he thinks matches Paul] is found among the four evangelists only in John. (Id., 1001 Bible Questions Answered, at 113.)

They mean John supposedly speaks of Paul's faith-alone gospel in a few verses, and those apply today, but all the faith-plus-works and follow-the-Law teachings of Jesus are supposedly effective only in the future during the tribulation.

Incidentally, their reading of John's gospel toward this end depends upon the modern mistranslation of pisteousin by Luther and our English translators. It was partly innocent because scholars had not found out yet in the 1500s that the Greek Septuagint of 257 BC rendered 'obeying' by the verb pisteuo. Hence, the Septuagint Greek Bible was only dissected in the modern age, and it now allows us to unlock pisteousin (the present participle active form of pisteuo). This important change has been resisted due to centuries of dogma based upon its inadvertent mistranslation by Luther in 1522. For discussion, see our webpage on the erroneous translation of John 3:16.)

Zwingli, 1520s

In the Reformation, Zwingli believed Paul's epistles supplanted any need to focus on the words of Christ. "Zwingli's copy of the NT was confined to Paul's Epistles and Hebrews." (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 1 sec. 51.)

E.P Sanders's Prefered Anti-Law Gospel Renders "Inauthentic" Any Law-Emphasizing Doctrine of Jesus in Matthew

Ed Parish Sanders is a New Testament scholar renown as "the principal proponents of the New Perspective on Paul." ("E.P. Sanders," Wikipedia.) His perspective places Paul as dealing with contemporary issues of Judaism, and whether its customs and laws made one superior versus Hellenistic customs and laws. Paul supposedly said the law did not have this effect, and Jews were not superior to Gentiles for obeying their Torah.

In 1985, Sanders wrote that the Jesus of Matthew 23 who excoriates the Pharisees for not following the Law enough cannot possibly be the "historical" Jesus, i.e., these are not truly Jesus' words. Why? Obviously because they conflict with Paul's views of the Pharisees as legalists (when Jesus says they are not, but too lax. See Matt. 23:23). Here are Sanders' words:

As I argued in the preceding chapter, the Jesus of Matt. 23:5-7, 23-26 is not the historical Jesus. He is one who objects to the Pharisees because they are not righteous enough, and he favors a higher righteousness according to the law, while not denying any of the law, even its minutiae (see also Matt. 5:17-20, 43-8, 6:1-8, 16-18). Further, the charges of Matt. 23 are related to the use of tax collector to mean 'outsider,' which I take not to be an authentic saying of Jesus....We can be certain that Jesus did not use 'tax collector' as it is used in Matt. 5:46, and this counts against the authenticity of the passage on the hypocrites. [Matt.](6:1-4, 5-8, 16-18), and consequently against the authenticity of the charges against the Pharisees in Matt. 23. (E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Foretress Press: 1985) at 277.)

Hence, Sanders simply eliminates any emphasis by Jesus upon righteousness from the Law because it does not fit Paul's view that the Pharisees were strict in obeying the Law. However, as we demonstrate elsewhere, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus both record the Pharisees were lax on the Law, while esteeming their own traditions not found in the Law. Jesus was right they were lax; Paul was wrong that they were strict adherents to the Law. See our chapter nine from JWOS.

Carl Stange: Lutheran Who Paulinizes Jesus' Message

Carl Stange wrote an influential article in 1924 entitled "Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt," in Zeitschrieft fur Systematische Theologie at 58. The Paulinizing aspects of this are summarized in an article entitled "Carl Stange, Lutheran Paulinizing of Jesus's Message." It can be found in Clarence Bauman's book, The Sermon on the Mount: Its Modern Quest for Meaning at 177. [Google books displays a different title, but this is a typo.]

One of the quotes Bauman cites from Stange is:

"Fellowship with God is not achieved through ethical performance. From an ethical standpoint, it is a derogation of the idea of the good to seek its realization by imitating Jesus. The teaching about the ideal.... only serves to make plain the reprehensibility of the human condition... The meaning of the moral demand is not that it gives us the power for the good but rather that it shows us our impotence for the good." Id., at 177, quoting Stange, Zur Ethik, at 59.

Stange is thus deliberately saying Jesus is not an example to imitate. Such effort would supposedly "derogate" the very notion of what it means to be good. And any of Jesus's commands to be good were not intended to incite obedience, but rather the realization of our weakness that we can ever truly obey God. This is solely derived from Paul being superimposed on Jesus's words.

Professor Bauman aptly summarizes the message of Stange:

"Stange’s central axiom is derived not from Jesus but from Paul and reflects not the content of the Sermon on the Mount but the influence of Reformation dogma."

"Stange made claims about the Sermon on the Mount which its content does not validate. He read into it theories and experiences foreign to its sphere. Stange’s misinterpretation of the Sermon on the Mount exemplifies the characteristically Lutheran hermeneutical incongruity of superimposing upon the teaching of Jesus the theology of Paul." (Baumann, id., at 185.)

Jesus Had Supposedly No Inspiration Until He Spoke to Paul!

Dr. Dubose taught at the University of South whose review was the Sewanee Review. Dubose was in the Theology Department. Dubose in effect, in conjunction with this 'review,' taught Jesus did not truly speak with inspiration until the messages He gave Paul when resurrected because Jesus only then supposedly for the first time spoke with true inspiration.

First, let's begin with the book review entitled “Dr. Dubose's Gospel in the Gospels,” Sewanee Review (University of the South: 1907) at 113. It explains Paul with “extreme rarity” mentions any words from Jesus. This makes, as Renan said, Paul’s doctrine comprise a “fifth gospel” which has virtually nothing in common with the four gospels. Instead, “the Gospel, as [Paul] understands it, is not the teaching of Jesus while on earth, nor even His life on earth, but the work and the Person of the Risen Christ...The Risen Christ is St. Paul’s Gospel.” Id., at 113. And thus, only the Risen Christ gives us the true gospel, and this Dubose claims, is "best stated by Apostle Paul." Id. See also William Porcher Dubose, The Gospel in the Gospels (1906) at books.google.com.

What does Dubose mean and the Sewannee Review which is the journal at the school DuBose teaches? They mean that Jesus' words on earth (rather than after Resurrection when Jesus communicates with Paul) are not as authoritative or inspired as when relayed through Paul when Jesus is now Resurrected.

First, Dubose asks whether Jesus taught on earth from wisdom or instead from divine inspiration. Id. at 75. Then Dubose answers that it is obvious Jesus spoke with human wisdom, but then deflects our concern by saying it was no less true than inspired truth:

While the Sewanee Review is proudly defending that Paul alone came with the inspired truth which the Resurrected Jesus alone attained, Bonhoeffer has the better view: such a view represents a Christianity without Christ! Jesus becomes a sacrificed figurehead without any relevant personal message. This embarrassing family secret among Christians has leaked out to non-Christians, causing discredit on Jesus until we Christians rectify this error.

Google Review of JWO Says Paul's Gospel, Not Christ's Saves

Here is an example of Paulinism to rebut my book, Jesus' Words Only, posted as a review at books.google.com:

The author [of Jesus' Words Only] needs to learn to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). He also needs to learn the difference between Mystery (Body of Christ) and Prophecy (Isreal). Paul's gospel is the only gospel that saves today. After the rapture of the church, Israel's New Testament law comes back into effect.

The commands given to Israel are not the same as the commands given to the Body of Christ. The Jewish Church (Israel) is to inherit the earth, the Gentile Church (Body of Christ) are to inherit the heavenly places. The calling between Israel and the Body of Christ are different callings, with different commands, both reconciled to God by one cross and one saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul Had The Secret Doctrine

In Ernst von Bunsen's The Hidden Wisdon of Christ and the Key of Knowledge (Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green, 1865) Vol. 2  claims that Matthew wrote down the public sayings of Jesus, omitting the secret and more perfect teachings of Jesus which Paul first preached.

You are Supposedly Lost If you believe in Jesus' Salvation Gospel

In a Messianic page debate, Linda says she believes in Yeshua and obeys the Torah/Law. Vince G. tells her that she is lost based upon Paul's doctrine of grace. Listen to Vince G on 12/29/2009 rebuff this obedient follower of Jesus/Yeshua. Vince even brushes aside valid quotes from Rev. 14:12 to insist Linda is lost:

[Vince] You're wrong. DEAD wrong. You are, in fact, a false teacher by that 
statement.

My Comment: It unfortunately is Vince who will have to answer for why Vince rejected Jesus' words in favor of Paul's doctrine of grace. Vince teaches based upon Paul's doctrine of grace that disobedience to the Law (a) does not matter for salvation and (b) is preferred over any effort to obey because by trying to obey and be righteous - "heaven maimed or hell whole" as Jesus taught (Mark 9:42-47) -- supposedly results in "hell maimed" (repenters from sin for salvation sake supposedly go to hell) when "heaven whole" (unrepentant from sin go to heaven) was supposedlly the truth path to salvation. What Vince is saying is so incongruous with Jesus that I believe if he truly just spelled out his thoughts, compared them to Jesus' words such as in Mark 9:42-47 or the words of Rev. 14:12, Vince would realize it is himself, and not the messianic he is rebuffing, who will suffer hell if he stays on his current path without repentance from sin as measured in God's Law which Jesus says continues (Matt. 5:17-19).

Grace Alive Ministries - "Do Not Follow Earthly Jesus"

In an article 'What would Jesus Do?' at Grace Alive Ministries (non-profit from Pennsylvania), it proves Paul and Jesus had different messages on the Law in three areas. So then he admits they have different directions, and says as a result, the only commands to follow are the commands of the Ascended Christ funnelled through Paul. What is interesting is how he admits that the last thing Jesus did was clearly expand that His commands should go to the nations:

At the end of Christ’s earthly ministry the audience was expanded to the nations of the earth. However, the message still focused on “the promises made unto the fathers,” the establishment of the earthly kingdom. Those nations were also to observe the Law of Moses, “all things whatsoever I [Christ] have commanded you.”

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19,20

But then when the author tries to separate the need of the 12 to teach even the NATIONS everything 'I commanded,' the author abandons this recognition, and ignores it. He claims Jesus' ministry is solely to Jews, and thus Paul's ministry is the only one to follow. To avoid any accusation that I am taking anything out of context here is this outrageous claim to ignore the teachings of Jesus, and only listen to Paul (who never quotes Jesus but the liturgy):

The ministry of Paul is in contrast to the principles of the earthly ministry of Christ. Paul’s epistles establish the context of his ministry.

Unlike the earthly ministry of Christ that excluded the Gentiles, the ministry of Paul specifically targeted the Gentiles.

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:9

Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. Romans 11:13

In another contrast to Christ’s earthly ministry Paul dealt with “mystery” information rather than promises previously made by the prophets.

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:25,26

Rather than encourage people to keep the Law of Moses, Paul urged people not to be subject to the bondage of the law.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:1-4

What Paul would do is very different from what Jesus would do. In the three areas of Christ’s earthly ministry discussed, Paul did the exact opposite. Who then should we follow? Should we ask, “What would Jesus do?” or, “What would Paul do?” This is the Bible’s answer to that question. [NOTE: This is not the Bible, but Paul speaking -- the fallacy in his argument.]

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I [Paul] have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. I Corinthians 4:15-17

Be ye followers of me, even as I [Paul] also am of Christ. I Corinthians 11:1

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I [Paul] write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. I Corinthians 14:3

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. I Timothy 1:15,16

The pattern for believers in the Age of Grace is Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Paul followed the ascended Christ. He gave the pattern for following that same heavenly Christ. We do not follow the earthly Christ; we follow Paul as he followed the heavenly Christ.

To this, I can only say UGGH!

Jared, Worship Pastor in Omaha

In a March 2011 article entitled "What Would Paul Do?" Jared says Jesus' did things we cannot because Jesus was God. The healings, walking on water, etc. 'So isn't it better to turn to Paul?' he effectively asks. I know this is not a serious scholar, but still Jared claims he is a Grace University graduate and Worship Pastor at Redeemer Church in Omaha. So here are his words:

I was thinking about WWJD bracelets today (don't ask me how I got there) and I suddenly realized that, in so many instances, that question is irrelevant, verging on incoherent. Almost like asking, "What would my iPad do?" Jesus, while human, was (and is) also God and that makes the position from which he did and said everything completely other.

****

So I was thinking—as heretical as this sounds—that a better question to ask yourself as a Christian is simply "What would Paul do?"

Hold on, before you pick up stones to stone me. Paul himself wrote "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). Throughout his teaching, Paul seemed to have an uncanny grasp of how the Gospel impacted our everyday life. It speaks into our marriages, our employment, our relationships. The list goes on and on.

So perhaps "WWPD?" is too near-heretical to be beneficial for most Christians. But I would suggest that there are better alternatives to WWJD that actually have biblically grounded answers we can directly apply to our lives.

So WWPD is a "better alternative to WWJD...." There it is again ... abandoning Christ, preferring Paul.

On the Millard Community Church website is "What Would Jesus Do?" which claims it is blasphemy to ask 'what would Jesus do?' to measure the moral decision-making we need to resolve. I kid you not! Even Paul said "put on the mind of Christ" and Peter says "be imitators of Christ...." So this has now gone to outrageous positions.

Jesus's Thoughts on Dispensational Dismissal of His Words

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory (Luke 9:26).”

"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who 7 rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (John 12:4748).

Statistical Analysis Proves Jesus Ignored

One of the most troubling thoughts is that Paul has so supplanted Jesus that when we study a Bible topic, most modern pastors quote Paul 90% of the time, and Jesus less than 5%. For 5 years, I kept charts of sermons as I listened, and found it averaged 13 quotes of Paul to 1 of Jesus per sermon. This was shockingly true even when a parable of Jesus was being discussed. And we do this unconsciously because Paulinism is so saturated into the evangalical church. We do not perceive it because we are conditioned to think Paul's doctrines are just as valid as those from Jesus, and there is thus no harm to this subservience of Jesus to Paul.

For example, here is an evangelical article -- "Scriptures on Marriage" -- giving advice for married persons. There is no Pauline slant to the doctrine expressed. But still, there is an enormous weight given to Paul. It is as if Jesus never spoke about Love, kindness, forgiveness, seeking to make things right with one angry at you, etc. All these principles are solely quoted from Paul with few exceptions where Jesus gets a word in edgewise.

In the article, there are 111 citations of Scripture, 95% quotes. Paul is quoted 38 times, often with long explanations. Of the quotes, Jesus is only quoted 6 times. And barely an explanation of His words appear. See below. In equal distance almost is James and Apostle John's letters which are each quoted 3x. Solomon does well, as we might expect, and Proverbs is quoted 27 x.

Let's review how Jesus' words were used to help on this important topic of marriage.

First, Jesus is cited but not quoted from Matthew talking about God's plan that man and woman would form one flesh. An important passage, but not quoted and briefly mentioned. The article "Scriptures on Marriage" cites Matt. 19:4-6.

Second, Jesus is cited in a long string cite, referencing Matt. 6:23. There is no indication of what Jesus says there. Must be not be very important, it appears.

Third, without a quote, we learn: "As you read Matthew 5:31-32 you can see that “Jesus is trying to move us from easy divorce to a deeper commitment to marriage.” (Dr. Roger Barrier)"

Sadly this verse is not discussed or quoted even though it is apparently about marriage!

Next Jesus is quoted 2x from the same verse, as this author's prayer -- "my prayer for marriages." “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:23)

We are not told Jesus' prayer is similar; we are simply given the author's prayer. Poor Jesus, didn't He have a similar prayer? I guess we can just push Him aside, judging from this article, and call it 'my prayer.' (My tongue is firmly planted in my cheek.)

Then Jesus's words on marriage are finally brought forth: “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”(Matthew 19:6)

Next, we learn this from Jesus: "Jesus said, “I came that they might have life and have it to the full” (John 10:10). Amazing! Just a quote finally of just Jesus speaking. Hard to hear him normally in this article, but finally we hear the Lord speak on His own!

The article ends with many quotes, and among these are 3 quotes from Jesus:

• But wisdom is proved right by her actions (Matthew 11:19).

• But I tell you that men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment; for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned (Matthew 12:37).

• My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this —that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command (John 15:12-14).

That tallies out to just six quotes of the ONE who came to shed His blood for us. But Paul gets quoted in full 38 times. The ratio is thus 38:6 in favor of Paul, or better than 6 to 1 in favor of quoting Paul over Jesus. This is an objective example of what I am saying has happened to our commitment to Jesus.

Thus, it pretty much appears Jesus has disappeared from view, and is of marginal importance. We call Him Lord but pretty much make Paul our Lord. Sad but true.

Videos That Endorse Paulinism (Preferring Paul over Jesus' Ministry Teachings)

In Jesus v. Paul: The Two Gospels Compared (Feb 2010) on You Tube, you hear first-hand the normative teaching today that indeed Paul and Jesus differed on things like idol meat, the law, etc., but Jesus was not preaching to Christians -- only Paul was. However, we need only follow Paul. Why? Because 2 Peter calls Paul "scripture," and everything Paul said is infallible. And thus the only way the two contradictory views between Jesus and Paul on doctrine can be reconciled is by this two gospel dispensational solution, so says this video-author. Uggh!