Effect of Paul on view of salvation

What does it matter? Paul's writings are the Word of God. No point in such hypotheticals which serve no real purpose. There is no reason not to use the writings of Paul, to do so is to ignore the Word of God.

 

If you rip out Paul's letters in the New Testament, you then will rip out the heart of the New Testament.

 

I disagree... I think the core of the Bible (much less the NT) is the gospel accounts. It is the peak of an archway w/ one side being the OT and the other being the NT.

I view Paul's gospel as a small part of the gospel message Jesus was preaching. One reason I say this is b/c of continuity sake, Jesus' message was more centered on God's rule which is where the term "gospel" (euaggelion) came from in Isa 52:7 of the LXX. THus the central message of the gospel is not justification by faith but God's rule in creation being re-established as he is reconciling all things to himself (not just humans). Paul uses that theme but does not focus on it likely b/c it was already a central theme in the OT and the gospel accounts. Thus he focuses more on the human aspect of the gospel and salvation even though that is a limited portion of God's mission to redeem his creation.

As it relates to the OP, I think the concept of a proper soteriology is easily found in the gospel accounts and OT. John emphasizes the aspect of faith and proper repentance. Mark 1:14-15 display the core of Jesus' message as being God's rule established through faith and repentance. Paul picked up on Jesus' message and the Jesus tradition which he inherited. He did not invent that aspect of theology. His focus was on Gentile acceptance in the people of God and the forensic aspects of salvation like justification and adoption.

 

It is rather sophomoric turn this into a cal vs. non cal issue. Some people just cannot help themselves.

 

When I saw the title for the thread I thought it was a Hebrew discussion...the pual is a verb tense in Hebrew.

Ah well...

 

Here is a thread where something along these lines was discussed:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74458

 

If all Scripture is inspired by God, and Paul's words are a part of "all Scripture" then it is essential to the Bible. These books are not merely optional, they are essential or else we take away from God's Word.

 

In my opinion God's word is all truth it doesn't support anything but the truth. The ideas of men have created these different doctrines not scripture.
MB

 

The point is that even Jefferson attacked Paul and his teachings.

Thus in answer to your question, the fact that Jefferson rejected Paul was mainly for the reason that he wanted to reject the fact God elects persons based only on His own purpose and grace, not upon works. Jefferson doesn't like this truth, and was belligerent toward this biblical revelation.

Such a view is definitely Pelagian.

As to your OP, this is what you are looking for, in how does rejecting Pauls writings give us a view of "what the Scriptures likely support." Which is a misnomer, as Pauls writings are in support and are a revelation of the whole counsel of God. I believe your wording lends itself to support that those who reject the writings of Paul can conclude that he is incorrect. I believe this is accidental on your part. The wording also lends itself toward one believing Pauls writings are then contrary to the rest of the balance of Biblical revelation. I believe this also to be accidental on your part.

Therefore I presented you with a adequate example of a person who; 1) Rejected the writings of Paul, and; 2) What conclusions this led said person to embrace.

I've shown it leads to a Pelagianistic theology.

It looks to me this in line with your request in the OP.

 

I'm not arguing for the gospel accounts to be more inspired and other scripture as less. I am saying that some parts of scripture are more important than others. Or to say it another way, some portions have more significance in weightier areas. After all, it was you who said equated Paul's writings as the heart of the NT. It sounded like you were putting a qualitative weight on his writings. It can't be a quantitative weight b/c Luke wrote more than Paul. So I was just giving my take on the issue of weighty scripture.

Considering the purpose of the OT (cf. Lk 24:44ff), the gospel accounts complete the story of the OT, and the NT looks back to that account as the significant event that shapes orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Therefore, the gospel accounts are by far the most important (weightiest) of scripture. The early church thought so.... that is why they copied the 4 accounts more than any other manuscript of the NT.

 

:applause::applause::applause::wavey:

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

If you take Paul's writings out of the NT, then you have just knocked down one, or two of the church's pillars, therefore, severely crippling the church. Or that's how I see it.

 

FTR, Brother, I did not see the C/A slant that some were saying in this thread. I thought it was fairly balanced.

 

Oh well, I was ready to learn more Hebrew Grammar...

HankD