HuffPo contributer attacks Paul

[OldSchool2]

Huffpo is at it again.

"The Apostle Paul wrote much of the New Testament and charted a course that Christians have been following (and fighting about) ever since. For many Christians--especially for conservative evangelicals--Paul's writings form the core teachings of their churches, from settling church squabbles to the centrality of the death and resurrection of Christ.

"So here's the irony: Paul's letters have long formed the core of Christian theology, but Paul's handling of his Bible makes him look like the crazy uncle you make excuses for or avoid entirely.

"Here's why.

1. Paul read the Bible out of context ..."

Did St. Paul write the New Testament out of context as well?

Pete Enns also claimed that Paul "read scriptures in odd ways" and "pitted one verse of the Bible against another".

BTW, for anyone who can stomach the rest of his accusations, Enns newest book, The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It is still for sale.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-reasons-why-apostle-pau_b_5942792.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000055

[OakWood]

I think that a man who was struck down by God, temporarily blinded and claims to be of the biggest of all sinners (as he identified himself) and then found the grace of the Lord through a personal calling from Jesus is in a better position to judge his own teachings than the despicable Huffington Post!

Remember that Paul's teachings have been a mainstay of the New Testament for the chunkiest bite-sized portion of 2,000 years. If God doesn't want Paul's epistles in the Bible, I think that God would have probably told us by now.

Even the most discerning of men -  the personal disciples of Jesus who had the pleasure of meeting our Lord in the flesh accepted Paul as a true disciple, so  if they accepted him then why  is Paul constantly attacked?

 

I'll tell you why. He's attacked because he represents the side of Christianity that Godless men, unrepenting sinners and seekers of their own desires find to be conflict with their own interests - that's why!

Paul told some home truths that people don't like and for that he is despised by the God-hating world.

Paul was nothing other than a mere man but it's not by coincidence, but only by divine authorisation  that his writings form the greatest and most widespread testimonies of the New Testament after the Gospels.

[Willa]

I heartily agree, OakWood and OldSchool. Even Peter agreed with Paul's teaching in his own book, even though he said that some, probably new converts, don't understand them well. Paul also presented his teaching to the apostles in Jeruselem to make sure they were all on the same page. Paul's teaching's were endorsed by the universal church at that time.

2 Peter 15:b-16 --as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of Scriptures.

The fact that the writer in Huff n Puff identifies himself as an evangelical and then tears apart the veracity of Scripture is an affront to all genuine evangelicals who love God's Word. He gives reason for others to doubt his salvation since he does not display by his words any enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, all who understand Scripture with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit know that his accusations are easily seen as misinterpretations by someone who has no understanding or spiritual discernment. When properly understood there is no conflict at all in what he has discribed. His statements become ludicrous.

John 16:12-14 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will gloriy Me, for He wll take of what is Mine and declare it to you." NKJV These are the words of Jesus later echoed by Paul. All Scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit--God breathed.

[JohnD]

Well, for those who try to disrepute Saul of Tarsus, they use a lot of hearsay and conjecture. Eventually it comes down to the apparent disagreements between the school of Paul and the school of Jesus. It has to since every word of Paul can be found in the Old Testament. Out of context one may claim, but in agreement with the over all context of the Bible.

 

The differences in Jesus' teaching and Paul's is simply the Old Covenant was still in effect when Jesus taught. At times he hinted at a new teaching (Matthew 13:52 / Revelation 21:5). But Jesus' main mission was to go to the cross. He healed, yes. He taught, yes. He returned the Law of Moses to the condemnation it was intended to be rather than the means to salvation the Jewish leaders made it out to be (the very purpose of the Sermon on the Mount). The so-called Lord's prayer (which if you read the context tells it is the disciple's prayer... and even more the disciple's prayer under the old covenant... what bearing does forgive me as I forgive others have on John 3:16-18?)...

 

Jesus took the Tanakh and brought out the condemnation of the old covenant with only one hope (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

Paul took that same Tanakh and brought out the salvation of the new covenant with only one hope (Romans 3:24)

 

The address of verses of scripture (New or Old Testament) must also be considered in the setting (New or Old Covenant):

 

Hebrews 9:16-17 (KJV)
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

 

The testator of the New Covenant is Jesus himself.

[jtartar]

Huffpo is at it again."The Apostle Paul wrote much of the New Testament and charted a course that Christians have been following (and fighting about) ever since. For many Christians--especially for conservative evangelicals--Paul's writings form the core teachings of their churches, from settling church squabbles to the centrality of the death and resurrection of Christ."So here's the irony: Paul's letters have long formed the core of Christian theology, but Paul's handling of his Bible makes him look like the crazy uncle you make excuses for or avoid entirely."Here's why.1. Paul read the Bible out of context ..."Did St. Paul write the New Testament out of context as well?Pete Enns also claimed that Paul "read scriptures in odd ways" and "pitted one verse of the Bible against another".BTW, for anyone who can stomach the rest of his accusations, Enns newest book, The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It is still for sale.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-reasons-why-apostle-pau_b_5942792.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000055

OldSchool,

Anyone who criticizes the Apostle Paul, does not understand The Holy Scriptures at all. Paul wrote 14 Books of the Greek Scriptures, the Christian Greek Scriptures. Paul knew about ten times more about what God and Jesus wanted The Christian Congregation to be than all the other Apostles. It was to Paul that Jesus gave many revelations of Sacred Mysteries, that had been secret for generations, Gal 1:11,12, Rom 16:25,25.

It was Paul that wrote 1Cor, and 2Cor, where we find out so much about how Jesus wanted The Congregation to function, and the positions of most importance in the Congregation, 1Cor 1:28-31, 13:1-13. Paul was the teacher to all men, Jews, Gentiles, a Kings, Acts 9:15,16. The Bible tells about Paul doing miracles during all the time of his ministry, Acts 19:6-12.

Paul was actually the greatest of all the Christian teachers, Apostle. This is because Jesus did not teach Christianity, because he was a Jew, and it was against The Mosaic Law Covenant to teach another religion, until the death of Jesus, at which time The Mosaic Law Covenant ended. Jesus instituted The New Covenant on the night before he was put to death, alike 22:14-20, 1Cor 11:23-26, Heb 8:6-13, Gal 4:4.

[Riverwalker]

The problem people have with Paul is directly related to His audience

 

the rest of the Bible authors pretty much dealt with the Jews who understood the morality of God.

 

They would stone people for almost anything including adultery homosexuality , blasphemy

 

So these things really did not need to be addressed

 

But Paul went out into the gentile world where sexual immorality, boastfulness, atheism , paganism et al were widely practiced, and thus he addressed it.

 

Thus the proponents of a favored sin look at the bible and see that Only Paul spoke against it....and so what is the liberal method....if you can argue with the message, destroy the messenger.

 

and the huff is about as liberal as they come

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Huffpo is at it again.

"The Apostle Paul wrote much of the New Testament and charted a course that Christians have been following (and fighting about) ever since. For many Christians--especially for conservative evangelicals--Paul's writings form the core teachings of their churches, from settling church squabbles to the centrality of the death and resurrection of Christ.

"So here's the irony: Paul's letters have long formed the core of Christian theology, but Paul's handling of his Bible makes him look like the crazy uncle you make excuses for or avoid entirely.

"Here's why.

1. Paul read the Bible out of context ..."

Did St. Paul write the New Testament out of context as well?

Pete Enns also claimed that Paul "read scriptures in odd ways" and "pitted one verse of the Bible against another".

BTW, for anyone who can stomach the rest of his accusations, Enns newest book, The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It is still for sale.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-reasons-why-apostle-pau_b_5942792.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000055

I don't trust anything the Huffington Post touts.  They are an embarrassment to journalism.

[Guest]

Let's see, which shall I choose, the apostle Paul, chosen and taught by the Lord, and revered for about 20 centuries, or the Huffington Post, to guide my life? That is a tough one! 

[Joshua260]

I already thought Paul was awesome, but you guys have enlightened me to some new revelations, and I appreciate that.  Great answers. 

[Tristen]

The best way to counter attacks against the authority of scripture is to analyse the claims in the light of scripture itself.

 

 

1. Paul read the Bible out of context.

 

Pete Enns claims that Paul interpreted scripture out of context – citing Paul’s use of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:25-26.The claim is that Paul used Hosea as evidence that the Gentiles were included in God’s plan.

 

Now, if you read Romans 9:24-25 in the English NKJV, then I can readily concede that Paul appears to be using Hosea to evidence Gentile inclusion.

 

“²⁴ even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

²⁵ As He says also in Hosea:

“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
²⁶ “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.””

 

However, if we take the time to look at the context (which the author has ironically failed to do), then it becomes clear that Paul was actually using Hosea to evidence God’s inclusion of the Jews – not the Gentiles.

 

Paul had already established the Gentile inclusion in God’s covenant prior to chapter 9; further evidenced by the fact that he was writing to a primarily Gentile audience in Rome. Chapter 9 is explicitly about Israel’s rejection of the gospel – not about the Gentiles at all. Now consider the other two verses Paul uses to evidence his point;

 

“²⁷ Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
²⁸ For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

²⁹ And as Isaiah said before:

“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.””

 

Both of these are specifically about the restoration of Israel. So Paul’s point is about the restoration of Israel, and not about “Gentiles and Jews full and equal partners in the eyes of Israel's God” or “God having mercy on Gentiles” as Enns claims. Paul’s use is therefore a perfectly legitimate (and contextual) use of Hosea.

 

 

 

2. Paul didn't just read scriptures in odd ways; he also accepted the odd readings of others who preceded him

 

Firstly, even if true, this would represent no problem for the Christian faith. All scripture is considered to be God-inspired. There is no rule that all New Testament claims be explicitly evidenced in Old Testament scriptures – only that they provide a consistent revelation of God and reality. The Law was new when delivered to Moses, as were the Prophets at the time of their authorship.

 

Secondly, the evidence provided for this by Enns is weak to the point of ridiculous. Assumptions are made regarding Paul’s intent, and the source of information, for which there is no support provided.

 

 

 

3. Paul pitted one verse of the Bible against another.

 

Again, the evidence used to support this claim is a bit odd (Romans 10 5-8, citing Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14). Paul simply used two verses from the Law to demonstrate that the inward aspect of Law (i.e. faith) had been ignored by the Jews –in spite of their zeal for the outward adherence. Jesus makes a similar claim in Matthew 23:23.

 

 

 

Why does Paul do these things? Two reasons.

 

And finally, Enns bases his conclusions in logical fallacy. Namely, innuendo and appeals to motivation. Enns speculates that Paul felt pressure to “bend” scripture to suit his purpose of promoting Jesus. So Enns expects us to believe that Paul, who gave up a life of honour and plenty to experience life-long persecution, intimidation, tribulation and death, thought God needed some deceptive assistance to get His message through. Well, we could believe that, or we could simplyexamine what the Bible actually says – in context.