Was Paul a false apostle?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Paul said that he was persuaded that nothing is unclean of itself......this persuasion, he said, came from the Lord.......but,......if a person "logics" himself to think of a particular thing as unclean.....to him,.....that particular thing is unclean. (Romans 14:14).

How do you persuade such a person otherwise, knowing that their "logic" is flawed?

Case in point......the "preterists" see the logic of the "futurists" as flawed, and so do the "futurists" see the "preterists".

Hey Joel,

I don't understand your "Case in point." As far as I can tell, the debate between preterism and futurism is not based on both sides merely asserting that the "logic" of the other side is flawed. The issue is one of facts. What does the Bible actually say? I have spent two years pressing for futurists to present a Biblical foundation for their beliefs, and as yet, no one has risen to the challenge.

Case in point - I presented an integrated complex of mutually confirming verses that strongly imply that the Great and Notable Day of the Lord was fulfilled in the first century. No one in that thread has shown any errors in my conclusion, and neither has any futurist presented a similar integrated complex of mutually confirming verses that imply a future fulfillment. So the issue is not properly described as a mere disagreement about "logic." It is a matter of facts. What does the Bible really teach?

The answer to the one who sees something as unclean, the one in the first example, is to refrain from partaking of the unclean thing in their presence. Otherwise, the work of God in that "weak" one's faith, weak as it may be, may be further impaired by your lack of love.

I don't see any lack of love. On the contrary, real love does everything it can to help the "weaker brother" understand the truth proclaimed in God's Word. False doctrines are very harmful and can lead to a destruction of the "weaker brother's" faith. For example, after years and years and years of false predictions about the rapture from noted Bible "scholars" the "weaker brother" is likely to toss the entire faith out the window, concluding that if the "scholars" are always wrong about the rapture, they may well be wrong about everything else they teach.

This is a constant "sticking point" in the forum. Certain ones who have, by their logic, come to a place where they stand separated from others who have not arrived at the same conclusion, may depart from "love" by insisting on their views. After all, aren't they saying, in effect, that the other is weaker because of their alleged faulty views?

I am not insisting on my views when I insist that we adhere to what the Bible actually states. The division is caused by those who insist on their own beliefs that can not be shown to be founded upon Scripture.

Paul, when encountering such ones, reminded them that he only preached Christ, and Him crucified. That is good advice indeed.

Joel

Yes, that is excellent advice. But it must not be misunderstood. Paul preached many things that go well beyond Christ and Him crucified. For example, Paul's letter to the Thessalonians is used by futurists to insist on the doctrine of the rapture.

Great to be chatting,

Richard

[joel]

[QUOTE=RAM][What does the Bible really teach?
/QUOTE]

Maybe the fact that you have not been persuaded is that there is no sufficient "teaching" to present to you regarding these matters which you insist are so important, and so obvious to you, and represent a vital part of what is to taught, as you see it.

What does Paul have to say on this very basic question? What has Paul taught?

I can relate to that question, and use all 13 of his letters as background material. But, I cannot use anything he said to discuss 70 A.D.and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. As far as I can tell, he said nothing about it.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What does the Bible really teach?

What does Paul have to say on this very basic question? What has Paul taught?

I can relate to that question, and use all 13 of his letters as background material. But, I cannot use anything he said to discuss 70 A.D.and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. As far as I can tell, he said nothing about it.

Joel

If you limit yourself to Paul's letters only, how will you ever get a full or accurate understanding of what the entire Bible is teaching?

And why have you spoken so much about Elijah and the future of national Israel? Paul said little if anything on either topic.

Richard

[joel]

If you limit yourself to Paul's letters only, how will you ever get a full or accurate understanding of what the entire Bible is teaching?

And why have you spoken so much about Elijah and the future of national Israel? Paul said little if anything on either topic.

Richard

You are right concerning Paul's silence as to Elijah. I should have taken his cue and remained silent as well as we have gone around that mountain too many times. I learned a good lesson there.

I do not limit myself to Paul's letters.....I think I have demonstrated that the entire scripture is profitable and should be studied.

I've expressed this before.....so it should not be something new......Paul was sent to the Gentiles, as their apostle. His preaching is what we should preach. All of us are to preach what he preached, not just "preachers"........the preaching concerns Christ, as you know.

Additionally, whatever we teach (preaching is one thing.....teaching another) we should attempt to align our teaching with Paul's instructions. We may supplement the teaching with any and all parts of scripture, but, according to his instructions, we are to focus on his teachings as he taught of Christ.
That is why so much of what we discuss can be counter-productive as it provokes the flesh, and may be the result of man's wisdom, using enticing words which appeal to ears that need tickling.......like rattling a garbage can.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You are right concerning Paul's silence as to Elijah. I should have taken his cue and remained silent as well as we have gone around that mountain too many times. I learned a good lesson there.

Does that mean that you do not believe in a future coming of Elijah? And if you do, then upon what do you base your belief?

I do not limit myself to Paul's letters.....I think I have demonstrated that the entire scripture is profitable and should be studied.

I've expressed this before.....so it should not be something new......Paul was sent to the Gentiles, as their apostle. His preaching is what we should preach. All of us are to preach what he preached, not just "preachers"........the preaching concerns Christ, as you know.

And I answered that Paul did not restrict his preaching to the Gentiles. On the contrary, he said that the Gospel he preached was "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16)

Additionally, whatever we teach (preaching is one thing.....teaching another) we should attempt to align our teaching with Paul's instructions. We may supplement the teaching with any and all parts of scripture, but, according to his instructions, we are to focus on his teachings as he taught of Christ.

There is nowhere that Paul told us to follow only his writings. On the contrary, he emphatically proclaimed that the OT was written "for our admonition."

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

The attempt to divide the teachings of Paul from the rest of the Bible is the source of a great division in the body of Christ. It is the fundamental doctrine of dispensationalism which also teaches that God's people are divided into Jews and Gentiles. I think this is a grave error.

That is why so much of what we discuss can be counter-productive as it provokes the flesh, and may be the result of man's wisdom, using enticing words which appeal to ears that need tickling.......like rattling a garbage can.

Joel

The flesh is provoked when its pride is insulted by truth that exposes its private doctrines are not based on Scripture. The spirit rejoices in the proclamation of Biblical truth.

I think you are taking things too personally. I see nothing "unproductive" in our discussions. They have taught me many things I probably would not have learned in isolation, and they have greatly helped me to conform my understanding to what is actually taught in Scripture.

Richard

[CWH]

Hi Joel and Richard,

It's a common fact that people views other people's belief as flawed. The main reason is that people believed what they believe is RIGHT. Preterists use facts to support their belief so are the futurists; and they all believed their facts are right. Preterists claimed that futurists speculate, I can also say that preterist speculate on AD 70 because nothing in the Bible mentioned the word "AD 70". What's the big deal about speculating; we speculate all the time... stock market, government policies, weather, election etc. Preterist claimed that futurist made no inroad in their speculations for the last 2,000 years, I can also say that preterist did not made much influence for the past 2,000 years either with their "AD 70" concept.

Now back to the topic. I have never thought that Paul was a false apostle and the reasons were already cited by me. Besides, Paul have never shown himself to be a false apostle that we know of such as making fire fall from heaven or built an image to honor(revelation 13) or say "Here is the Messiah!" (Matthew 24). I do understand that some teachings of Paul are controversial but these does not made him a false apostle.

Many Blessings to you both.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Joel and Richard,

It's a common fact that people views other people's belief as flawed. The main reason is that people believed what they believe is RIGHT. Preterists use facts to support their belief so are the futurists; and they all believed their facts are right. Preterists claimed that futurists speculate, I can also say that preterist speculate on AD 70 because nothing in the Bible mentioned the word "AD 70".

That logic is flawed. Jesus spoke specifically about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the Gospels, and the events he spoke of happened in 70 AD. Therefore, there is no "speculation" involved in using the date "70 AD" when discussing these facts.

The futurist position is entirely different. That position is based on speculations about things that simply are not found in the Bible. Case in point - the "second coming of Elijah" before the "second coming of the Lord." There is nothing in the Bible that specifically states any such event, so it is based on speculation, pure and simple.

This is the fundamental difference between preterism and futurism. The former is founded upon what the Bible actually states, the latter is founded on nothing.

What's the big deal about speculating; we speculate all the time... stock market, government policies, weather, election etc.

The "big deal" is that speculation is easily confused with facts, and this leads to false or unsupported doctrines being taught as truth. And this leads to the rejection of the faith as obviously false by unbelievers who listen to the false teachings and failed speculations of the futurists.

In short, the "big deal" is that the truth of what the Bible really teaches is of the utmost importance. Too much speculation destroys the testimony of truth that God proclaims in His Word.

Preterist claimed that futurist made no inroad in their speculations for the last 2,000 years, I can also say that preterist did not made much influence for the past 2,000 years either with their "AD 70" concept.

The idea of "having much influence" has nothing to do with which is true, and which is false.

There is no comparison between preterists and futurists on this point. Preterists have never changed the fundamental understanding that the words of Christ in the Olivet Discourse were true and fulfilled. Futurists, on the other hand, make new predictions every year, and have always been wrong. The difference between them is the difference between night and day, truth and falsehood.

Now back to the topic. I have never thought that Paul was a false apostle and the reasons were already cited by me. Besides, Paul have never shown himself to be a false apostle that we know of such as making fire fall from heaven or built an image to honor(revelation 13) or say "Here is the Messiah!" (Matthew 24). I do understand that some teachings of Paul are controversial but these does not made him a false apostle.

Many Blessings to you both.

And on this point we agree completely! Let us rejoice!



Richard

[joel]

I think you are taking things too personally.

Perplexed.......but not in despair.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think you are taking things too personally.

Perplexed.......but not in despair.

Joel

I thank God that you are not in despair, my brother!

Perhaps I misread the emotional tone you intended in your post. And that's a very important thing we must all remember. These little strings of characters are entirely insufficient to capture the full meaning intended, so we should always double check with each other to be sure we understood before making any judgments.

Many blessings to you, my Peacemaker friend,

Richard

[joel]

Amen.....we all three agree. Joel