Do 'mainstream' Christians Worship Paul?

[consiglieri]

While I do not know that any Christians overtly worship Paul, I think it is a foregone conclusion that Paul won hands-down the competition to define and articulate Christianity for ensuing generations.

Now, I am sure that this is precisely what he wanted to do, but if he had only been a little more clear in his definitions and articulations.

It could have saved a lot of trouble.

Paul!

Are you listening to me?!

Anybody want to draw a rough parallel between Paul and Bruce R. McConkie?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

IMO, LDS seem to quote the BoM first thus you "appear" to have a closer relationship to Joseph Smith than to Jesus Christ. Your second favorite book IMO to reference is the OT to defend the more contraversial issues like polygamy, and NT comes in third as a reference.

For myself, I like to start the defense with "the 4 gospels" of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, and go from there.

That's why on Internet boards I try and exclusivley use the Bible. Some might call that Bible bashing. Im just following the example of the 1st century Christians who where using writings that there jewish counter parts said werent scripture. So then the reverted back to the common scripture cannon that they both shared.

[Tsuzuki]

I know this works for the LDS but hopefully you can understand why non-members will take the reference with a grain of salt.

Kind of like how non-Catholics take exclusively Catholic canon with a grain of salt, but it still works for Catholics?

[BCSpace]

I've yet to have a conversation with a mainstream Christian about grace and works where my quotes of Christ's teachings on the subject were not countered with words and teachings from Paul-which makes it appear as if these people place more importance on Paul's writings than they do on the teachings of Christ Himself.

Yes, they ignore that Paul himself stated that works are necessary and that he himself was not saved not to mention a few Deification verses, etc. Their selective reading of Paul contradicts Christ in numerous cases, Jesus' statement in Matthew 25 that works are required for salvation being a glaring one.

[Redeemed]

Hi BlueBell , ya done got me on this one, I have four books about paul in my library, zero about js.

redeemed

Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

[Zakuska]

I like when Paul contradicts himself.

Acts 26

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

That definately isn't the Romans Road to Salvation!?

[consiglieri]

I like when Paul contradicts himself.

Acts 26

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

That definately isn't the Romans Road to Salvation!?

Zak, Zak, Zak!

But that is Luke's Paul, not the real Paul of the Pauline epistles.

It has been established by specialists in the field that for virtually any point stated by Luke regarding Paul on which a Pauline epistles sets forth a position; there is a contradiction.

In other words, any time Paul and Acts mention the same event, they tell different stories.

Now, why would that be, I wonder?

All the Best to you, my tag-team buddy!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

Hi BlueBell , ya done got me on this one, I have four books about paul in my library, zero about js.

redeemed

Sorry, i'm confused.

My question was not concerning non-LDS and their feelings between JS and Paul-it was about their feelings between Paul and Christ.

Actually, it wasn't so much about their feelings about them, but their actions towards their teachings and what that seems to say about their feelings concerning them.

The number of books you have about JS is completely irrelevant to the topic.

[e=mc2]

Freakin a man:

In my experience, most protestants at least seem to like Paul better than Jesus in his teachings regarding salvation. Seems like 90% of the passages they use come from Paul. I can understand though as a Jesus teachings are not appealing to the "grace alone" viewpoint. He was very works oriented.

That's because he was a fully faithful JEW, living the Law as was his true successor James, his brother, and then his cousin Symeon, and further blood relatives on down the line for generations.........Jeffrey L. Butz has the line for 15 successors, every single one of them blood relatives of Jesus. It was a family dynasty succession, not an apostolic one. At least according to several early Christian fathers. Heh, no wonder Catholicism has ignored this part of history, somehow Peter got the headship and it's a mistake....... of course, the entire episode of thou art Peter and upon this rock is considered a forgery..... imagine that, a forgery in the New Testament, and it's still in there! And it's not the oly one either, according to Bart Ehrman's resaerch........

[coolrok7]

As LDS, we are always getting flak for our views concerning Joseph Smith and some even believe we worship him over and above Christ.

I'm noticing though that mainstream Christians have their own issues with leaders in the early Church-mainly, Paul. . . .

Is Paul put on a pedestal by most 'mainstream' Christians? His he, rather than Christ, their final authority on many Gospel questions regarding doctrine?

In short-do they accuse LDS of too close a relationship with JS while they revere Paul in an even greater way?

Or is it all just misunderstanding?

Probably, partly a misunderstanding. A short answer would be that Paul is the one whose letters are usually addressing the issues, such as grace and works, that Mormons/mainstream Christians are usually discussing.

As a Mainstream Christian (Lutheran, Missouri Synod), I can answer that to quote Paul as an authority is because a lot of his letters are in the New Testament and to the point of a lot of what is being discussed, as he was personally chosen by Jesus Himself, who was later endorsed by Peter (chief apostle). I would not personally classify it as "worshipping".

He also was trained under Gamaliel, a respected Jewish teacher (rabbi?)

I never criticize Mormons for "worshipping" Joseph Smith, as some outside might think, who aren't familiar discussing things with LDS.

Paul also wrote a lot of letters that made it into the cannon as well. While he might be often quoted, it does not mean that other books do not hold equal weight in related matters. Does that help?

[Son]

Probably, partly a misunderstanding. A short answer would be that Paul is the one whose letters are usually addressing the issues, such as grace and works, that Mormons/mainstream Christians are usually discussing.

As a Mainstream Christian (Lutheran, Missouri Synod), I can answer that to quote Paul as an authority is because a lot of his letters are in the New Testament and to the point of a lot of what is being discussed, as he was personally chosen by Jesus Himself, who was later endorsed by Peter (chief apostle). I would not personally classify it as "worshipping".

He also was trained under Gamaliel, a respected Jewish teacher (rabbi?)

I never criticize Mormons for "worshipping" Joseph Smith, as some outside might think, who aren't familiar discussing things with LDS.

Paul also wrote a lot of letters that made it into the cannon as well. While he might be often quoted, it does not mean that other books do not hold equal weight in related matters. Does that help?

Not really, nearly every discussion I have with a EV or Baptist or ? Has me quoting Christ and the rebuttal is a warped interpretation of Paul's writings.

Every service I have been to in the last 20 yrs. has the preacher asserting we are not worthy, we are nothing, Jesus did it all, and by Grace are you saved- which is interpretted as Salvation being what we are to rest in, and the sum goal of our existence to utter a 1 paragraph prayer that some one recites to you and you repeat.

No understanding of the volumes of text that express going on unto perfection, the divine nature, godliness, holiness, righteousness. If there is, it is some convaluded perception that the blood of Jesus blinds God to our sins, and He doesn't see them.....

There is a picking and choosing of Paul's verses to create this milk toast churchianity experience that is turning the children away and leaving them with only darkness to pursue. The great whore of false interpretation has arrived, and Paul would never approve of his writings being used to drive the sons and daughters of God away from our Father.

Pauly theistic adulteration is the root cause of the churches being emptied by the thousands, if not millions every year.

The only church I know of that is growing in the EV genre (as far as butts in seats is concerned), is Joel Osteen's. He at least gets the point that we are given dominion to overcome our weaknesses, and rise up to the royal family that we are to be a part of. That we can live and be every promise that the Bible has in it that glorifies God.

The Oneness with Christ - Which means to live HIS teachings, and walk in HIS ways, with no limits, Oneness has no limits, Christ limits no man. Most of us today are nothing more than Stillborn Christians, wreathing in weakness and apathy, touting I'm saved, are you. Come to my church, my pastor tells the old stories better than anyone.

Worship Paul? NO

Mess up his message? Every day........

son

[bluebell]

Probably, partly a misunderstanding. A short answer would be that Paul is the one whose letters are usually addressing the issues, such as grace and works, that Mormons/mainstream Christians are usually discussing.

As a Mainstream Christian (Lutheran, Missouri Synod), I can answer that to quote Paul as an authority is because a lot of his letters are in the New Testament and to the point of a lot of what is being discussed, as he was personally chosen by Jesus Himself, who was later endorsed by Peter (chief apostle). I would not personally classify it as "worshipping".

He also was trained under Gamaliel, a respected Jewish teacher (rabbi?)

I never criticize Mormons for "worshipping" Joseph Smith, as some outside might think, who aren't familiar discussing things with LDS.

Paul also wrote a lot of letters that made it into the cannon as well. While he might be often quoted, it does not mean that other books do not hold equal weight in related matters. Does that help?

It does help me understand your beliefs concerning it-but doesn't help me understand the countless other mainstream Christians i have spoken with who put paul's words as the final authority on much if not all of the doctrine they espouse.

I know that not all of mainstream Christianity acts that way towards Paul's writings-but in my experience, especially with EV's, the majority do.

It's mostly to them that my questions are aimed since they are the ones who's actions and words i am questioning.

Thanks for your thoughts though-i agree with what you said about paul definitely having the authority to teach from Christ. I am questioning where the idea comes from that his words are the final authority on things.

[Zakuska]

Zak, Zak, Zak!

But that is Luke's Paul, not the real Paul of the Pauline epistles.

It has been established by specialists in the field that for virtually any point stated by Luke regarding Paul on which a Pauline epistles sets forth a position; there is a contradiction.

In other words, any time Paul and Acts mention the same event, they tell different stories.

Now, why would that be, I wonder?

All the Best to you, my tag-team buddy!

--Consiglieri

Or maybe this is just a case of Paul "being all things to all people"... and Lieing to save his skin from Prison. I'm sure the court audience was packed with Jews. He would of set the place a blaze if he had said what he really was doing.

[coolrok7]

It does help me understand your beliefs concerning it-but doesn't help me understand the countless other mainstream Christians i have spoken with who put paul's words as the final authority on much if not all of the doctrine they espouse.

I know that not all of mainstream Christianity acts that way towards Paul's writings-but in my experience, especially with EV's, the majority do.

It's mostly to them that my questions are aimed since they are the ones who's actions and words i am questioning.

Thanks for your thoughts though-i agree with what you said about paul definitely having the authority to teach from Christ. I am questioning where the idea comes from that his words are the final authority on things.

You're welcome.

In Mormonism's view of authority, it comes through a "living prophet" plus whatever is in the standard works, plus "official statements" made by its leaders. It is my view that it does not matter whether or not the authoritative words are from a living or dead prophet, the words are equally authoritative. You agree that Paul has "authority". Scripture is the final authority as it has survived the first century apostles who wrote some of it and they were alive when it was written.

Our view is that the writings of Paul have equal authority with the rest. So to quote him in his expertise in the distinction between Law and Gospel is natural for us and is not out of the ordinary for Ev's.

We all believe "Scripture" is from God. This of course follows that the words are in agreement with true knowledge God would have us "know" and actually comes from Him.

Ev's of course dispute that Mormon "scripture" is valid/comes from God (which is why we have major disagreements).

Just because they say they are Evâ??s doesnâ??t necessarily mean they have everything right and accurately reflect what it truly means to be an evangelical in the Biblical framework. We all get lumped in together because the term is commonly used. Not all EVâ??s think alike, all the time, on everything. I can only represent what I believe it means in an historical context.

Final authority for me is the bottom line when it comes to what we are required to believe in the sense of knowing the â??truthâ? from the â??falseâ?. Scripture to me is that â??final authorityâ? so we would of course disagree as you would accept that which is not necessary to know the truth of what God would have us believe (my perspective.

What I do know about why others rely on Paul a lot is because he wrote â??Scriptureâ? which was attested to by Peter. Your Church lays stress on a â??living prophetâ?. The foundational ones are now dead and you guys still view their teachings as foundational to Mormonism as it is distinguished from Protestantism/Catholicism which in their view is heretical.

Speaking for myself, I understand the problems Mormonâ??s have with those outside their faith perspective. There are Mormonâ??s who have distorted views of what otherâ??s believe/teach as well. Not justifying it but it does happen on all sides of an issue.

What I would appeal to is â??Scriptureâ? itself (to me only the â??Bibleâ? for the answers to my questions). As a Mormon you look to the additional works of Mormonism to answer the questions you would have. I of course donâ??t view them as necessary to â??know the truthâ?.

My point is that what can be known concerning â??salvationâ? and what is necessary to be saved from eternal punishment, before Mormonism and likewise Jehovahâ??s Witnesses were here (who make similar claims for Russell as Joseph Smith does for Mormons) can be found while studying the Bible and be led by the Holy Spirit to accept the truth way before either one had come along.

The reason I make this point, in the context of this thread, is that all misunderstandings on all sides comes from a lack of the true understanding of those who are accurate in belief in reference to the standards of the specific â??Scriptureâ? they are trying to follow.

The fact that people misrepresent others views of the different belief systems has been around since time began. It wonâ??t end until the resurrection. Not trying to down play the situation, as I know it can be very frustrating.

[bluebell]

You're welcome.

In Mormonism's view of authority, it comes through a "living prophet" plus whatever is in the standard works, plus "official statements" made by its leaders. It is my view that it does not matter whether or not the authoritative words are from a living or dead prophet, the words are equally authoritative. You agree that Paul has "authority". Scripture is the final authority as it has survived the first century apostles who wrote some of it and they were alive when it was written.

Our view is that the writings of Paul have equal authority with the rest. So to quote him in his expertise in the distinction between Law and Gospel is natural for us and is not out of the ordinary for Ev's.

We all believe "Scripture" is from God. This of course follows that the words are in agreement with true knowledge God would have us "know" and actually comes from Him.

Ev's of course dispute that Mormon "scripture" is valid/comes from God (which is why we have major disagreements).

Just because they say they are Evâ??s doesnâ??t necessarily mean they have everything right and accurately reflect what it truly means to be an evangelical in the Biblical framework. We all get lumped in together because the term is commonly used. Not all EVâ??s think alike, all the time, on everything. I can only represent what I believe it means in an historical context.

Final authority for me is the bottom line when it comes to what we are required to believe in the sense of knowing the â??truthâ? from the â??falseâ?. Scripture to me is that â??final authorityâ? so we would of course disagree as you would accept that which is not necessary to know the truth of what God would have us believe (my perspective.

What I do know about why others rely on Paul a lot is because he wrote â??Scriptureâ? which was attested to by Peter. Your Church lays stress on a â??living prophetâ?. The foundational ones are now dead and you guys still view their teachings as foundational to Mormonism as it is distinguished from Protestantism/Catholicism which in their view is heretical.

Speaking for myself, I understand the problems Mormonâ??s have with those outside their faith perspective. There are Mormonâ??s who have distorted views of what otherâ??s believe/teach as well. Not justifying it but it does happen on all sides of an issue.

What I would appeal to is â??Scriptureâ? itself (to me only the â??Bibleâ? for the answers to my questions). As a Mormon you look to the additional works of Mormonism to answer the questions you would have. I of course donâ??t view them as necessary to â??know the truthâ?.

My point is that what can be known concerning â??salvationâ? and what is necessary to be saved from eternal punishment, before Mormonism and likewise Jehovahâ??s Witnesses were here (who make similar claims for Russell as Joseph Smith does for Mormons) can be found while studying the Bible and be led by the Holy Spirit to accept the truth way before either one had come along.

The reason I make this point, in the context of this thread, is that all misunderstandings on all sides comes from a lack of the true understanding of those who are accurate in belief in reference to the standards of the specific â??Scriptureâ? they are trying to follow.

The fact that people misrepresent others views of the different belief systems has been around since time began. It wonâ??t end until the resurrection. Not trying to down play the situation, as I know it can be very frustrating.

I appreciate what you said here, but i think you are misunderstanding my questions.

Yes, mormons have more scriptures than mainstream Christians and we have more authoritative prophets than mainstream Christians-but that's besides the point in this topic.

I'm speaking strictly of the bible here, and strictly of the writers and prophets in the bible and nothing more. That is where i am coming from.

And i'm asking-why, when i quote james in defense of my doctrine to an EV Christian, do they quote Paul and act as if Paul somehow trumps james and is the final authority on the subject? I understand why they quote him, but why do they assume that his words trump anything else any other writer in the bible had to say about it?

Why, when i quote the words of Christ in the same discussion, do they quote paul again, as if his words are more authoritative than Christ's?

That's what i don't understand. They seem to preach the gospel of Paul and it seems as if the words of Paul are the final authority when it comes to their doctrine-not Christ and not any other writer in the bible either.

Why? What is their reasoning behind it? Is it really only because his words defend their beliefs best so they have elevated them to a higher position than they should be, or is there some other reason?

[Son]

I appreciate what you said here, but i think you are misunderstanding my questions.

Yes, mormons have more scriptures than mainstream Christians and we have more authoritative prophets than mainstream Christians-but that's besides the point in this topic.

I'm speaking strictly of the bible here, and strictly of the writers and prophets in the bible and nothing more. That is where i am coming from.

And i'm asking-why, when i quote james in defense of my doctrine to an EV Christian, do they quote Paul and act as if Paul somehow trumps james and is the final authority on the subject? I understand why they quote him, but why do they assume that his words trump anything else any other writer in the bible had to say about it?

Why, when i quote the words of Christ in the same discussion, do they quote paul again, as if his words are more authoritative than Christ's?

That's what i don't understand. They seem to preach the gospel of Paul and it seems as if the words of Paul are the final authority when it comes to their doctrine-not Christ and not any other writer in the bible either.

Why? What is their reasoning behind it? Is it really only because his words defend their beliefs best so they have elevated them to a higher position than they should be, or is there some other reason?

I think you may have the answer to why Paul.

As I said in a previous post, Paul has been interpretted in order to replace accountability.

LDS teach that you are accountable to your actions.

Paul is preached in order to say you need do nothing Jesus did it all on the Cross, but say the magic prayer, and you are a saved Christian, and will receive all the glories of heaven when you die. That is why most EV Christians look to a rapture scenario, or seek death after being salvaged.....There are no levels of heaven, in their doctrine, and rewards are just crowns that you will throw at the feet of Jesus......

Mainstream Christianities sole goal and purpose is Salvation, it is all they focus on, because they have judged the LDS faith to be a cult and works oriented, they have reaped their judgement and do nothing but "LOOK TO JESUS"!

Which no one in the EV faith can define what that even means, because it would involve being a participant in walking like JESUS! And there can't be any works or you are not saved by the blood.

son

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

IMO, LDS seem to quote the BoM first thus you "appear" to have a closer relationship to Joseph Smith than to Jesus Christ. Your second favorite book IMO to reference is the OT to defend the more contraversial issues like polygamy, and NT comes in third as a reference.

[...]

From the July 2007 First Presidency Message, we have the following scriptures quoted:

Luke 23:34

Matthew 10:31

3 Nephi 11:28â??30

John 13:35

From the August 2007 First Presidency Message, we have the following scriptures quoted:

Alma 33:11

Ephesians 2:19

Luke 15:3â??6

Psalm 68:5â??6

I do agree to an extent regarding the use of OT scriptures. But, conversely, perhaps non-LDS don't pay enough attention to it.

[bluebell]

I think you may have the answer to why Paul.

As I said in a previous post, Paul has been interpretted in order to replace accountability.

LDS teach that you are accountable to your actions.

Paul is preached in order to say you need do nothing Jesus did it all on the Cross, but say the magic prayer, and you are a saved Christian, and will receive all the glories of heaven when you die. That is why most EV Christians look to a rapture scenario, or seek death after being salvaged.....There are no levels of heaven, in their doctrine, and rewards are just crowns that you will throw at the feet of Jesus......

Mainstream Christianities sole goal and purpose is Salvation, it is all they focus on, because they have judged the LDS faith to be a cult and works oriented, they have reaped their judgement and do nothing but "LOOK TO JESUS"!

Which no one in the EV faith can define what that even means, because it would involve being a participant in walking like JESUS! And there can't be any works or you are not saved by the blood.

son

I agree that there are some EV churches out there that are like this son. Some of paul's words can be interpreted to support OSAS and 'easy grace' doctrines that some churches proclaim-so he's the easiest one for them to go to.

I'm wondering though if they even notice their apparent esteem for Paul above everything else? Is it a deliberate decision or are they blind to it?

I was visiting family this last weekend and while there we drove by a local church. I don't remember the name of it-it was a basic EV church (no disrespect intended just the only way i can think to describe what kind of a Christian church it was). On the side of the church, on a giant sign, was the words of a scripture.

It's not a sign that changes like some churches have, not a billboard kind of thing-but rather a sign that is a part of the architecture of the building. It's a part of the permanent message of the church. It was what the church wanted the public to know concerning what doctrine they taught-a mission statement, basically.

The scripture that was up there was 2 Tim. 8 (part of it) and 9 (part of it)-

"Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord,...Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,..."

I can see what they are trying to get across by using that verse, but at the same time, i thought it was an odd verse to use to explain the teachings of their church and to proclaim the 'good news of Christ'.

They picked the words of Paul, not Christ, and those words didn't mention who Christ was or what He taught or His Atonement, nor the greatest gift of eternal life and how to gain it or why someone would want it.

Instead, they chose words that pointed out that, according to Paul, they are saved by grace and not works.

I don't mean to be judgemental about their sign nor to say that the people who went to that church are going to hell because they espouse that doctrine or any such thing. I'm just using it as an example of the phenomenon that i am talking about and how it comes across to those not of that faith.

[Lightbearer]

This is an interesting question in that Paul had a simular experience that Joseph Smith had...he had his road to Damascus and Joseph had the Sacred grove. They were both falsely imprisoned and both were killed for their testimonies of Christ. Paul apparently had a "following" even when he was living because he stated:

(1 Corinthians 1:10-15) "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."

It seems like the problem existed even then. Another interesting scripture along these lines is found in the D&C 76 reguarding those that go to the Telestial Kingdom:

(D&C 76:98-101) "And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world; For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas. These are they who say they are some of one and some of anotherâ??some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant."

That is quite an indictment of the sectarians, it is quite clear that this is speaking of those with a perverted notion of the gospel and not so much idolizing the person of Paul but are led away into false teachings because of their twisting of the words of these Apostles and Prophets. Although Paul was a true Apostle of Jesus Christ people tend to take the words he wrote and twist them to fit their own false ideas about the gospel.

(2 Peter 3:15-16) "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

That I think is the greatest problem with Paul as it relates to this thread.

[Son]

I agree that there are some EV churches out there that are like this son. Some of paul's words can be interpreted to support OSAS and 'easy grace' doctrines that some churches proclaim-so he's the easiest one for them to go to.

I'm wondering though if they even notice their apparent esteem for Paul above everything else? Is it a deliberate decision or are they blind to it?

I was visiting family this last weekend and while there we drove by a local church. I don't remember the name of it-it was a basic EV church (no disrespect intended just the only way i can think to describe what kind of a Christian church it was). On the side of the church, on a giant sign, was the words of a scripture.

It's not a sign that changes like some churches have, not a billboard kind of thing-but rather a sign that is a part of the architecture of the building. It's a part of the permanent message of the church. It was what the church wanted the public to know concerning what doctrine they taught-a mission statement, basically.

The scripture that was up there was 2 Tim. 8 (part of it) and 9 (part of it)-

"Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord,...Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,..."

I can see what they are trying to get across by using that verse, but at the same time, i thought it was an odd verse to use to explain the teachings of their church and to proclaim the 'good news of Christ'.

They picked the words of Paul, not Christ, and those words didn't mention who Christ was or what He taught or His Atonement, nor the greatest gift of eternal life and how to gain it or why someone would want it.

Instead, they chose words that pointed out that, according to Paul, they are saved by grace and not works.

I don't mean to be judgemental about their sign nor to say that the people who went to that church are going to hell because they espouse that doctrine or any such thing. I'm just using it as an example of the phenomenon that i am talking about and how it comes across to those not of that faith.

I've had the opportunity to attend LDS services for a period of a year and a half and EV churches for over 20 yrs. off and on.

In the EV setting; These phrases are used 10 times yeh, more....

The words according to Paul

or Paul writes this

or Paul says this.

It is the predominant text that is taught, well over Jesus taught, or said etc.....

In fact I haven't heard Matthew 5,6, and 7 taught for decades.....

In the LDS Joseph Smith's name is envoked far less than our Father, or our Lord Jesus.

Your question is one of great interest to me, because it took years for me to get the answer to the question, how did it come to this, regarding church presentation, doctrine and forms of worship.

Paul's words are taught and used in EV churches primarily because the attitude is Jesus did it all already, let Dr. Paul patch you up until you die and go live with Jesus.

His words are used as a soothing salve on the babes blistered bottoms, and they are lulled to sleep in salvation. As if it is a goal and not the gift.

If you speak to EV's regarding living the principles of Christ, they rarely even know what that means.

son

[kantgomo]

Probably, partly a misunderstanding. A short answer would be that Paul is the one whose letters are usually addressing the issues, such as grace and works, that Mormons/mainstream Christians are usually discussing.

As a Mainstream Christian (Lutheran, Missouri Synod), I can answer that to quote Paul as an authority is because a lot of his letters are in the New Testament and to the point of a lot of what is being discussed, as he was personally chosen by Jesus Himself, who was later endorsed by Peter (chief apostle). I would not personally classify it as "worshipping".

He also was trained under Gamaliel, a respected Jewish teacher (rabbi?)

I never criticize Mormons for "worshipping" Joseph Smith, as some outside might think, who aren't familiar discussing things with LDS.

Paul also wrote a lot of letters that made it into the cannon as well. While he might be often quoted, it does not mean that other books do not hold equal weight in related matters. Does that help?

I was reading through the posts to see if anyone had mentioned Paul's credentials. Finally, I came across your post, Coolrok7, mentioning his having learned under Gamaliel.

[bluebell]

I was reading through the posts to see if anyone had mentioned Paul's credentials. Finally, I came across your post, Coolrok7, mentioning his having learned under Gamaliel.

I'm not sure what paul's credentials have to do with the way many mainstream Churches today use paul's words.

Are you saying that because paul was instructed by a famous Jewish Rabbi that makes his words more authoritative than others who were writing during the same time period?

And how does Paul being instructed by a Jew make him an authority on Christ's Gospel?

I guess i'm just confused as to the significance of his teachers, given the questions at hand.

Can you clarify why you think Gamaliel is an important part of the answers to the questions that have been asked?

[JRG39402]

Traditional Christians believe all scripture is the word of God written through different human authors much like we write with a pen. If Pauls' writings are quoted more to the kind LDS people, perhaps it is because it is what is considered most relevent to the issue. We wouldn't quote Numbers much likely. It is certainly not a "worship" of Paul.

[Son]

Traditional Christians believe all scripture is the word of God written through different human authors much like we write with a pen. If Pauls' writings are quoted more to the kind LDS people, perhaps it is because it is what is considered most relevent to the issue. We wouldn't quote Numbers much likely. It is certainly not a "worship" of Paul.

More relevent than the words of Jesus?

[bluebell]

Traditional Christians believe all scripture is the word of God written through different human authors much like we write with a pen.

LDS Christians believe basically the same thing-so i understand what you are saying.

If Pauls' writings are quoted more to the kind LDS people, perhaps it is because it is what is considered most relevent to the issue. We wouldn't quote Numbers much likely. It is certainly not a "worship" of Paul.

That certainly could be. But still when Christ's words are quoted, under what conditions should Paul's words be more relevant than His?

More relevent than the words of Jesus?

Son beat me to the question.