Go figure

Sounds like an ultra-dispensationalist church. It is probably independent and non-affiliated.

 

Sounds like ultra or hyper dispensationalism to me. Also sounde heretical!

 

It is my understanding that hyper dispensationalists believe that only the Prison Epistles of Paul are applicable to the Church. There was a hyper on this Forum before I got off in 2006, Iuttutt or something similar was his moniker.

 

I find that a rather common mistake by many American Christians. As a test watch how often Paul is quoted on this BB and how seldom Christ is quoted or mentioned.

 

I don't think that is a disparagement of Jesus. Paul did write most of the epistles to the church and addresses the issues for daily Christian living. These are based on what Jesus taught. There is no conflict or distinction to me between Jesus and Paul but there is a difference in terms of what Jesus was doing before the crucifixion and ascension and what Paul was doing.

We have more specific directives from Paul (and other epistles).

Btw, the only statement I think I agree with is that the all the Bible is written for me but not all to me.

 

I tend to agree with your statement. Where I see the problem is where people use Paul's writings in attempting to support positions that I do not believe Christ would agree with. This is not a criticism of Paul, but of the misuse of Paul's writings.

But, as I said, watch how often Paul is mentioned, and now often Paul's writings are quoted, and how seldom Christ is mentioned or how seldome his teachings are quoted.

 

Especially since Paul claimed that he had been taught directly by the Lord Jesus. I'm always a bit leery of folks who try to array Jesus against Paul.

 

This set of Scripture applies here...

 

I see no distinction between the epistles Paul wrote and the words of Jesus Christ in the gospel accounts. Jesus was literally speaking the "red words", while Paul was writing by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Same difference.

The reason Paul is quoted so much is because of how and what he wrote. What we have recorded of what Jesus said was mostly sermons he preached. Now, just as you point to Jesus not being quoted as much as the epistles of Paul, you won't see Paul's sermons from Acts quoted as much either. The reason is the difference in presentation and content. In Romans for instance, Paul is writing systematically, developing major points and supporting those points while shooting down false ideas and conclusions. It's very heady stuff, in fact Peter says there are some things hard to be understood in his writings. Now, contrast this with the sermons Paul preached in Acts. Paul isn't teaching something contrary or more or less important in either case, but style and content are different.

One isn't more or less important than the other, although I would argue that an increased study of the gospel accounts is something we should try to do.

 

Dispensationalism carried to it's natural conclusion. When you start dividing up scripture where do you stop?

 

At worst, this is the same kind of false teaching that showed the need for the resurgence in the SBC. That somehow Paul taught things that Jesus wouldn't have approved of.

At best, it shows a smug superiority that infers that American believers and theologians are not quite as spiritually mature as our European brethren. When we grow up into the complete knowledge of understanding that our European friends have, we will embrace their viewpoints.

Paul is not at odds with Jesus. The "red letters" are not more important than the normal letters. Paul's teaching and Jesus teaching are one and the same.