Your writings always look at alternatives and make us think 👍
My view is Paul reinterpreted Jesus for his audience which included Gentiles.
The reality is Paul never knew Jesus or saw his bodily resurrection. Paul had a post-resurrection vision of Jesus and other heavenly visions from God. Paul is led by the Spirit of God but that does not make him infallible.
He refused to give John Mark a second chance and he opposed Peter to his face like he knew better than him.
Paul would have never thought his writings were Scripture and Paul was thoroughly Jewish to the very end.
I really don’t like views that set Paul above the gospels or Paul started Christianity, or worse, distorted Jesus teachings.
There are no black and white answers to the messiness of church history nor the complexities that went on during the infancy of this new Messianic movement called “the Way.”
It really is true that there are no black and white answers to the messiness of church history, we want it to be neat and tidy and clear, but that is not the case.
Good work! Yet I do not perceive how for the canonical view it holds true that "the tension is not a problem waiting for a solution." The fact that the different branches give you a solution speaks of it being a problem waiting for solution, just like the apostles that held a council, except one wants to [explicitly] outrule apostolicism and say all these solutions are equally valid. But that would restrict the applicability of this post. More generally, there seems to be a split in this path: either it was a problem waiting to be solved, to be handled at a council, or it was not - a third and a fourth way. But that was already my only complaint. God bless.
It would be interesting to ask the same question but to look at it through the lens of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions rather than movements in New Testament studies.
This was a very enjoyable read. Thank you for taking the time, and doing the research, to put it together! Something I think we(Christians) take for granted is church history itself. We have the unique advantage of seeing what the church fathers toiled over to give us the most precise(and concise) version of Scripture possible. It's a gift really to have their findings at our finger-tips. Second only to the actual readilly availble Word itself.
I do have a question: you mentioned James 2 and the workless-faith argument. What would you say about those who hold the idea that James 2 is not strictly saying that faith alone cannot save, but rather our works are evidence of our saving faith? Just curious.
To me, I think works are evidence of saving faith, while they don't save us, they show the transformative work of Christ through the Spirit in our lives.
Regarding the perceived contradiction between Matthew 5 and Romans 8, I think reading Romans 7 should help those confused understand how the two chapters actually complement rather than contradict each other. The problem isn't God's law but sin. Without the former, the latter cannot be defined nor punished. This, however, means that we are condemned by the Law of God unless we repent of our sins and turn to Christ.
Did our Savior abolish His Father's law through His death on the cross contra what He is recorded as saying during His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-19)? No, but He did resolve its condemning capacity toward those who follow Him (Romans 8:1-2) "in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:4, ESV).
This is a fantastic essay, brother!
Appreciate it bro!
Your writings always look at alternatives and make us think 👍
My view is Paul reinterpreted Jesus for his audience which included Gentiles.
The reality is Paul never knew Jesus or saw his bodily resurrection. Paul had a post-resurrection vision of Jesus and other heavenly visions from God. Paul is led by the Spirit of God but that does not make him infallible.
He refused to give John Mark a second chance and he opposed Peter to his face like he knew better than him.
Paul would have never thought his writings were Scripture and Paul was thoroughly Jewish to the very end.
I really don’t like views that set Paul above the gospels or Paul started Christianity, or worse, distorted Jesus teachings.
There are no black and white answers to the messiness of church history nor the complexities that went on during the infancy of this new Messianic movement called “the Way.”
It really is true that there are no black and white answers to the messiness of church history, we want it to be neat and tidy and clear, but that is not the case.
👍🦋
Good work! Yet I do not perceive how for the canonical view it holds true that "the tension is not a problem waiting for a solution." The fact that the different branches give you a solution speaks of it being a problem waiting for solution, just like the apostles that held a council, except one wants to [explicitly] outrule apostolicism and say all these solutions are equally valid. But that would restrict the applicability of this post. More generally, there seems to be a split in this path: either it was a problem waiting to be solved, to be handled at a council, or it was not - a third and a fourth way. But that was already my only complaint. God bless.
It would be interesting to ask the same question but to look at it through the lens of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions rather than movements in New Testament studies.
Solid work as always! This is helpful in understanding the historical context of how some have tried to reconcile the tension.
I can see this being a topic that comes up in debates about inerrancy.
Thanks! Yeah, could definitely come up in debates about inerrancy and canonization.
This was a very enjoyable read. Thank you for taking the time, and doing the research, to put it together! Something I think we(Christians) take for granted is church history itself. We have the unique advantage of seeing what the church fathers toiled over to give us the most precise(and concise) version of Scripture possible. It's a gift really to have their findings at our finger-tips. Second only to the actual readilly availble Word itself.
I do have a question: you mentioned James 2 and the workless-faith argument. What would you say about those who hold the idea that James 2 is not strictly saying that faith alone cannot save, but rather our works are evidence of our saving faith? Just curious.
Thank you!
To me, I think works are evidence of saving faith, while they don't save us, they show the transformative work of Christ through the Spirit in our lives.
Agreed. Thank you for taking time to reply. Enjoy your Lord's day.
Regarding the perceived contradiction between Matthew 5 and Romans 8, I think reading Romans 7 should help those confused understand how the two chapters actually complement rather than contradict each other. The problem isn't God's law but sin. Without the former, the latter cannot be defined nor punished. This, however, means that we are condemned by the Law of God unless we repent of our sins and turn to Christ.
Did our Savior abolish His Father's law through His death on the cross contra what He is recorded as saying during His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-19)? No, but He did resolve its condemning capacity toward those who follow Him (Romans 8:1-2) "in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:4, ESV).
Thanks for adding to the conversation.
You're welcome. Have a blessed day, Mr. Vale! Shalom.
Thanks Daniella!