Do 'mainstream' Christians Worship Paul?

[Doctor Steuss]

More relevent than the words of Jesus?

As I understand the hardcore Biblical inerrantist position (which I believe JRG subscribes to). Paul's words are the words of G-d. Paul became a mindless puppet when he wrote, and G-d was pulling the mindless puppetâ??s strings. Therefore, Paul's words and the words of Jesus are both coming directly from the same source and are therefore equally valid. Every word in the Bible was written through mindless puppets that had absolutely no free will while writing as G-d was really the one doing the writing. As to why He couldnâ??t have written it Himself (ala Ten Commandment tablets) is beyond me.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Very good...we get heat for quoting JS so much. They quote Paul more than any other. Wish I had thought of this.

Pa Pa

[consiglieri]

(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."

This is such a great quote by Peter.

Bubbling just under the surface is the obvious point that Peter disagrees with Paul on some issues; at least with the way that Paul is being interpreted.

If Paul were understood to mean the same doctrine that Peter taught, there would be no point to this verse. But note that, instead of coming out and just disagreeing with Paul (whose writings have attained the status of "scripture"), Peter instead chooses to attack a certain "interpretation" of Paul as invidious.

The game we play today with Paul has been going on a long time, it seems.

And I would bet you dollars to doughnuts the disagreement has something to do with the necessity of obeying the Mosaic law.

So here we have another verse attesting to sharp schisms developing within Christianity at an early date.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

This is such a great quote by Peter.

Bubbling just under the surface is the obvious point that Peter disagrees with Paul on some issues; at least with the way that Paul is being interpreted.

If Paul were understood to mean the same doctrine that Peter taught, there would be no point to this verse. But note that, instead of coming out and just disagreeing with Paul (whose writings have attained the status of "scripture"), Peter instead chooses to attack a certain "interpretation" of Paul as invidious.

The game we play today with Paul has been going on a long time, it seems.

And I would bet you dollars to doughnuts the disagreement has something to do with the necessity of obeying the Mosaic law.

So here we have another verse attesting to sharp schisms developing within Christianity at an early date.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

good point.

It seems that Christians in the early days of the church struggled with wrongly (according to Peter) interpreting paul's words to fit their own purposes just as some do today.

[e=mc2]

Consiglieri

So here we have another verse attesting to sharp schisms developing within Christianity at an early date.

And many top notch and very fine well read scholars are bringing all this out in the open (even though its been in the open now for over a century ). I am in the process of gathering materials for some podcasts on this. I know, I know, crimany Shirts is that all you can do now is podcast?

And no, I haven't forgotten good ole Brother Nibley's simplification either. I am getting back onto those this week as well. I have really been a slouch this first year of podcasting. I only have produced 65. I was expecting to do several thousand. Ah well, there is always next year too!

[Son]

Consiglieri

And many top notch and very fine well read scholars are bringing all this out in the open (even though its been in the open now for over a century ). I am in the process of gathering materials for some podcasts on this. I know, I know, crimany Shirts is that all you can do now is podcast?

And no, I haven't forgotten good ole Brother Nibley's simplification either. I am getting back onto those this week as well. I have really been a slouch this first year of podcasting. I only have produced 65. I was expecting to do several thousand. Ah well, there is always next year too!

Quality over quantity.

[e=mc2]

True, so true........

[AZBeliever]

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.

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.

And romans is quoted to me far more often than any scriptures in the 4 gospels are, during these conversations.

Paul seems to get top billing over all the other writers in the bible as well.

Because some will suggest that this is because we have more of his writings than most others (which is true), let me clarify. I'm not saying that it appears he gets top billing because his writings are mentioned more frequently-i'm saying that it appears he gets top billing because his writings appear to be given more weight than the others' are.

This seems true again, because anytime i have gotten into a conversation about differing doctrine and have quoted from other books in the NT that paul did not write-i'm am countered with words from Paul, and they are almost always provided as if they are the final authority on the subject, no matter if another writer wrote something different.

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?

The error you make in pitting the scripture from Paul against the scripture from Christ is that they are both 100% from God. The Holy Spirit superintended the process of writing the scriptures. The gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) were primarily narrative in nature, written as eyewitness accounts to the life and work of Christ with some instruction and teaching from Christ. The epistles were primarily instructive and doctrinal in nature. Remember, Paul claims that Christ taught him directly.

Romans is commonly used for doctrinal arguments because it is a very logical, well thought out masterpiece on the condition of man, his rebellion against God, his guilt before God, his need for a Savior, God's work of salvation by grace through faith, etc.

I see absolutely no conflict between what Christ taught, what Paul taught, and what James taught. They all come from the same source- God Himself.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

[Son]

The error you make in pitting the scripture from Paul against the scripture from Christ is that they are both 100% from God. The Holy Spirit superintended the process of writing the scriptures. The gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) were primarily narrative in nature, written as eyewitness accounts to the life and work of Christ with some instruction and teaching from Christ. The epistles were primarily instructive and doctrinal in nature. Remember, Paul claims that Christ taught him directly.

Romans is commonly used for doctrinal arguments because it is a very logical, well thought out masterpiece on the condition of man, his rebellion against God, his guilt before God, his need for a Savior, God's work of salvation by grace through faith, etc.

I see absolutely no conflict between what Christ taught, what Paul taught, and what James taught. They all come from the same source- God Himself.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

yes, but Paul is the most mis-interpretted and mis-understood of all the letters or "books" in the whole library of scripture.

His writings have been used to dumb down Churchianity into a no growth, Jesus did it all; and we need do nothing mentality. Other than saying a prayer of I believe in you Jesus, come into my heart, oh and make an appearance on Sunday.

Anything remotely resembling living like Christ has been turned inside out and labeled WORKS for salvation.

THe still born christians are as we speak filling up the heavens with a .....what the H--- happened............Where is Jesus?

And the teachers of this devil doctrine of weakness will be held accountable.

No believer has a Problem with what Paul wrote, its how his writings have been taught that is at issue.

son

[AZBeliever]

yes, but Paul is the most mis-interpretted and mis-understood of all the letters or "books" in the whole library of scripture.

His writings have been used to dumb down Churchianity into a no growth, Jesus did it all; and we need do nothing mentality. Other than saying a prayer of I believe in you Jesus, come into my heart, oh and make an appearance on Sunday.

Anything remotely resembling living like Christ has been turned inside out and labeled WORKS for salvation.

THe still born christians are as we speak filling up the heavens with a .....what the H--- happened............Where is Jesus?

And the teachers of this devil doctrine of weakness will be held accountable.

No believer has a Problem with what Paul wrote, its how his writings have been taught that is at issue.

son

son,

I do believe that the act of salvation is entirely an act of grace by God. You can not do anything to earn your salvation, for that would be by works and would be the wages that are due to you. The scriptures are crystal clear that this is not possible. In fact, the very faith to believe in Christ is a gift from God. If you think you can contribute in any way to make yourself more acceptable to God, you are deceived. This is a key component of the gospel.

But, you're barking up the wrong tree here with respect to "pray that prayer" or lip-service salvation. I will agree with you that there are many so-called Christians out there who think they are bound for heaven but do not have Christ as the Lord of their lives. But the mistake you make, my friend, is that you think that works contribute to your salvation, when in fact they are the result or product of that salvation. This is what James teaches when he says that you SEE that a man is justified by his works (not that he is justified BY his works). The Bible says if you do not bear any fruit or resembled a person that has been transformed by God, you have no reason to believe you are truly saved. Christ said if you love me, you will obey my commands. His people will frequently fail, but the difference is that they will want to obey Christ. Christ was the one that said you must be "born again" in a spiritual sense. This must take place FIRST before your works can be credited to you. The Holy Spirit must change your heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. He gives you spiritual sight and the ability to understand spiritual ideas that are otherwise foolishness and incomprehensible to the unredeemed. Self-righteous works done to work your way to heaven are like filthy rags to God...

Cheers,

AZBeliever

[paulhadik]

I'd like to back up what both AZ and Coolrok are saying.

Are there EV churches out there teaching pray a magic prayer and you will be saved? Yes, unfortunately there are way too many. But in any Holy Spirit inspired letter from paul do you read "ask jesus into your heart and you will go to heaven"?

nowhere.

There is a lot of junk out there masquerading as Christianity which is why we must compare these teachings with Scripture.

I have been teaching the life of Christ for almost 5 years now and I see no contradiction between what Christ taught and what Paul believed. I do see them dealing with two different audiences however. Christ dealt daily with His jewish countrymen who had a completely mistaken view of who He was and what the Law of Moses actually taught.

Most of Paul's letters are to believers and therefore are deeper studies into correct theology and exposes of heresy which were threatening the young churches.

[Son]

son,

I do believe that the act of salvation is entirely an act of grace by God. You can not do anything to earn your salvation, for that would be by works and would be the wages that are due to you. The scriptures are crystal clear that this is not possible. In fact, the very faith to believe in Christ is a gift from God. If you think you can contribute in any way to make yourself more acceptable to God, you are deceived. This is a key component of the gospel.

But, you're barking up the wrong tree here with respect to "pray that prayer" or lip-service salvation. I will agree with you that there are many so-called Christians out there who think they are bound for heaven but do not have Christ as the Lord of their lives. But the mistake you make, my friend, is that you think that works contribute to your salvation, when in fact they are the result or product of that salvation. This is what James teaches when he says that you SEE that a man is justified by his works (not that he is justified BY his works). The Bible says if you do not bear any fruit or resembled a person that has been transformed by God, you have no reason to believe you are truly saved. Christ said if you love me, you will obey my commands. His people will frequently fail, but the difference is that they will want to obey Christ. Christ was the one that said you must be "born again" in a spiritual sense. This must take place FIRST before your works can be credited to you. The Holy Spirit must change your heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. He gives you spiritual sight and the ability to understand spiritual ideas that are otherwise foolishness and incomprehensible to the unredeemed. Self-righteous works done to work your way to heaven are like filthy rags to God...

Cheers,

AZBeliever

Nothing you have said resembles anything that I believe. Salvation is a free gift. It is not the completion of our walk, faith or existence, we are called to go on to perfection.

We are called to ask, seek, and knock. This is all action and participation. We are called to become like Christ. This is not done by thinking we have received all and need no more.

We are called to be one with Christ, this can not be done by rubbing church all over us, on the outside. It is an inward growth through learning to Love, Praise, and Thanksgiving. We definitely have a part to play in all of this, salvation is what allows us to grow in the divine attributes, it is not an excuse to say Jesus did it all, I need not overcome. I need not do anything more. That is what Satan desires in his minions.....

Once again,

Salvation is not the end game, it is what allows us into the game of godliness, righteousness, holiness. And these attributes take effort, desire, discipline. And our Lord Jesus Christ is there for us the whole way, to lead and guide us into oneness with him. Can we start to define Salvation and the Divine nature as to totally different positions, or do we think that Salvation or Salvaged is the be all and end all of our eternities.....

[Son]

I'd like to back up what both AZ and Coolrok are saying.

Are there EV churches out there teaching pray a magic prayer and you will be saved? Yes, unfortunately there are way too many. But in any Holy Spirit inspired letter from paul do you read "ask jesus into your heart and you will go to heaven"?

nowhere.

There is a lot of junk out there masquerading as Christianity which is why we must compare these teachings with Scripture.

I have been teaching the life of Christ for almost 5 years now and I see no contradiction between what Christ taught and what Paul believed. I do see them dealing with two different audiences however. Christ dealt daily with His jewish countrymen who had a completely mistaken view of who He was and what the Law of Moses actually taught.

Most of Paul's letters are to believers and therefore are deeper studies into correct theology and exposes of heresy which were threatening the young churches.

I think this is the point of this thread. Paul's words have been used for unholy devices. And the members have bought it hook line and sinker, never standing up and questioning what their biola bible school taught preacher is selling.......

[bluebell]

As son said (though he's not LDS it still applies), no LDS person has a problem with paul's words.

and i also agree that paul's words and Christs (and james) compliment each other completely.

But many EV interpretations of paul's words do not compliment what Christ and james taught-but contradict it.

The doctrines of OSAS and salvation without works contradict the words of Savior and the words of other books in the bible-yet people are still using their interpretation Paul's words to teach such-why?

Why, when some Christians are interpreting Christ's words-do they use Paul's words to gauge what Christ 'must have meant'? WHy isn't it the other way around? Why don't they use Christ's words to gauge what Paul must have meant?

I hear that all the time-someone will quote something Christ said and someone else will use the words of Paul to explain what Christ really meant-but i have never heard it the other way around from an EV. I've never heard someone quote Paul and then have an EV quote Christ to explain what Paul really meant.

Maybe it does happen, but i've never heard it before whereas i've heard the other scenerio many times.

That's what i don't get. If they aren't putting paul above Christ and all other biblical writers then why do they do that?

[Son]

As son said (though he's not LDS it still applies), no LDS person has a problem with paul's words.

and i also agree that paul's words and Christs (and james) compliment each other completely.

But many EV interpretations of paul's words do not compliment what Christ and james taught-but contradict it.

The doctrines of OSAS and salvation without works contradict the words of Savior and the words of other books in the bible-yet people are still using their interpretation Paul's words to teach such-why?

Why, when some Christians are interpreting Christ's words-do they use Paul's words to gauge what Christ 'must have meant'? WHy isn't it the other way around? Why don't they use Christ's words to gauge what Paul must have meant?

I hear that all the time-someone will quote something Christ said and someone else will use the words of Paul to explain what Christ really meant-but i have never heard it the other way around from an EV. I've never heard someone quote Paul and then have an EV quote Christ to explain what Paul really meant.

Maybe it does happen, but i've never heard it before whereas i've heard the other scenerio many times.

That's what i don't get. If they aren't putting paul above Christ and all other biblical writers then why do they do that?

If they actually used Christ's words, then the whole house of cards would come crashing down, because they would be labeled LDS.

Jesus taught accountabiltity, action, devotion, seeking for all truth. That just doesn't fit in to modern day beliefs. For some LDS as well....Not just the EV's.

I'll have to try that exercise of yours the next time I am discussing scripture with a Evangelical, baptist, etc....

son

(more LDS than some, but less than others).

P.S. LDS= Latter Day Saint which does not necessarily mean you attend or are a member of a church.

[coolrok7]

bluebell Jul 31 2007, 06:55 AM

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.

For me, as a Protestant Christian (an historical context), the Bible is my â??standard workâ?. For Mormons (in which you agreed, also having an historical context, later than mine), there is an additional set of â??scripturesâ?, along with the Bible, which I/others reject as not being â??Scriptureâ?.

The Mormon Church is not the author of the Bible except for the JST which is not based on any manuscript but comes from the mind of Joseph Smith. This is where the conflict, as it relates to the points you raise, has its roots.

Neither one of us is responsible for that. We have to try and understand the whyâ??s and the wherefores of the others faith/belief systems we belong to and then to make the attempt to interact with each other.

I will try to answer your questions here with no animosity intended toward you or any others here. This is often the perception of those I try to have conversations with (I come from the ZLMB message board, my post to you is the first here).

The Bible is the overall document of the Jewish/Christian faith as of the first century (it wasnâ??t catalogued so to speak until the 4th century but nevertheless written (New Testament) in the first century. The last of the apostles, John, died at around the turn of the first century. It is from that collection of documents (Scripture) that the doctrinal basis for Christian belief comes from.

I think this is where Mormons, at least the ones Iâ??ve talked to, have trouble understanding the Protestant mindset, even though some have been there before converting to Mormonism. Underlying ideas are often â??understood/assumedâ? rather than overtly stated. I think this leads to the misunderstandings that often are the reasons for the questions asked by Mormons.

It would be helpful I think to understand the content/sequence of the historical debates that have taken place since the first century (even during) and the different groupings that began to form due to the spreading of the Good News of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. The message of the Gospel was being taken to the Gentiles as well as the Jewish people, early on in the first century. This often resulted in the Jerusalem leadership getting together to discuss these issues as they were being debated (Acts 15 for example).

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?

Itâ??s not a matter of trumping Jamesâ?? words (or any others for that matter) with Paulâ??s. Those who are not Mormon believe that specific Mormon doctrine is not Biblical. It appears to us that Mormons use the Bible as a stepping stone to arrive at false conclusions using their own â??scriptureâ? concerning how one should understand doctrines that are always in conflict with those outside their religious â??traditionâ?.

A lot of Paulâ??s writings were directed at these events that were being written about in his letters. These were being recorded and sent to the various groups he was meeting with on his missionary journeys. He was being directed by both the Holy Spirit as well as the Church in Jerusalem (the book of Acts records a lot of these events of Peter and Paul, along with the others mentioned).

Peterâ??s two letters (as well as Paulâ??s 13 letters) also records some of the things being discussed by Paul. A lot of Mormons it seems in ZLMB (as well as atheists) are always downplaying the validity of the Bible as being authoritative, when it comes to answering the many questions people have concerning Christianity (as defined by Mormons themselves; I believe it is a Christian heretical movement not to be listened to concerning their doctrine that is different from the Bible).

They also seem to always question the validity of the two books of Peter that the Mormon Church accepts as part of the â??Standard Worksâ? of the Church. It seems to me to be inconsistent with the truth of the Bible being the â??Word of Godâ? as stated by Church leadership.

The answer to your question, I think, is to offer a probable reason (as I understand the Mormon view of things) for the misunderstanding of the context of the two arguments being presented. Paulâ??s discussion concerning justification is primarily before God while Jamesâ?? is before men. They both appeal back to the offering of Isaac as the sacrifice Abraham was instructed to accomplish (prophetic of Jesus) as an act of obedience (Romans 3, 4; James 1, 2).

Paul says in Romans that Abraham was justified before he did anything as it was his heart condition that God knew beforehand that Abraham would be willing to do what He asked. James was appealing to what people actually were doing and on that basis made a judgment concerning faith/works. They are not in opposition to each other. A lot of people donâ??t seem to have this understanding which leads to the confusion that many have in the discussions Iâ??ve been involved in or have listened to.

It was a pre-Jerusalem event back in Old Testament time period which probably took place where the modern Dome of the Rock Mosque (Mount Moriah) is presently (the spot where Isaac would have been sacrificed were it not for God intervening and providing the ram for the sacrifice He required of Abraham (this later becomes God Himself providing the sacrifice for the whole world in Jesus.

The reason for the Dome of the Rock Mosque being where it is, I believe, has to do with the prophecy concerning the Jews punishment for rejecting Jesus as their Messiah. It is interesting that the Islamic apologetic attempts to claim fulfilled Biblical prophecy back through Abraham as well (their claim is through Ishmael but the promise was through the lineage Isaac).

Jesus said that not one stone of the Temple would be left standing (the Jews whole of their life centered on the Temple) and that, â??Behold your house is being left to you desolateâ? and that Jerusalem would be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the, â??times of the gentiles be fulfilledâ?.

I personally donâ??t have any issues with either Jamesâ?? or Paulâ??s points that are made. They are not in opposition to each other but are often understood to be.

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?

Again, it is not that Paulâ??s wordâ??s trumps anyone else. It is the context/setting of where the appropriate answers, depending on the context of the question/questions being asked, comes from. Paul was highly trained in things Jewish (the Law for example). Paul was not just the average Jew. He was well trained and quite knowledgeable.

He was actually vehemently in opposition to things Christian until his road to Damascus experience which totally changed his life as Jesus personally appeared to him. This is why Paulâ??s authority is unquestionable. Judaism and Christianity are one and the same. The term Christ is Greek for the â??anointed oneâ? which in Hebrew is â??Messiahâ?. Jesus is the Messiah of the Hebrew/Christian belief system (Isaiah 53; Acts 9).

If you read through the Book of Acts, you would see that Paul would always go to the Jewish Synagogues and preach the Gospel to them first, then on to the Gentiles.

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.

The Gospel doesnâ??t change in the Bible, regardless of whom it is that writes about it. Itâ??s just that Paul gives a succinct definition of what the Gospel is. He is often appealed to because he states very clearly what the Gospel is:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Very simply put, is the fact of the resurrection of Jesusâ?? flesh and bone body (that was born of the virgin Mary) that died on the cross and rose again on the third day just as the Scriptures (Old Testament) said Messiah would (belief in that Gospel is how one is brought to salvation).

A series of Biblical verses concerning the Gospel (other than Paul):

And He said to them, â??It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:7-11) And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, â??The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.â? (Mark 1:14-15) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. (John 3:14-15) Jesus answered and said to them, â??Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.â? The Jews therefore said, â??it took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?â? But He was speaking of the temple of His body. (John 2:19-21) Now He said to them, â??These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.â? Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, â??Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.â? (Luke 24:44-48) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come. (Matthew 24:14) Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Fatherâ??s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. (John 14:1-3)

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?

The reason behind it is that what Paul wrote is Scripture! It is no different for Mormons or any other group regarding religious belief. Joseph Smith and those that follow him in leadership positions, are the authorities whose words Mormons quote for their views (which are authoritative):

As Latter-day Saints we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders. Regarding the Bible: There is a misconception that the Bible is one book instead of a collection of sixty-six books, thirty-nine of which comprise the Old Testament and twenty-seven of which constitute the New Testament. (The Ensign, Church magazineâ??contains official statements of leaders, Church Conference, Elder Henry D. Taylor, Nov. 1976, p.63)

The Standard Works of the Church constitute the written authority of the Church in doctrine. Nevertheless, the Church holds itself in readiness to receive additional light and knowledge â??pertaining to the Kingdom of Godâ? through divine revelation. . .We rely therefore on the teachings of the living oracles of God as of equal validity with the doctrines of the written word. The works adopted by the vote of the Church as authoritative guides in faith and doctrine are four: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Many books have been and are being published by officers and members of the Church, and such may be sanctioned by the people and the ecclesiastical authorities; but the four publications named are the regularly adopted â??Standard Works of the Church.â? Of the doctrines treated in the authorized standards, the Articles of Faith may be regarded as a fair though but partial summary. (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, p.7)

A Missionary Church

This explains why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must, of necessity, be a missionary church and why our missionaries take their message to other Christians, even though they are often criticized for so doing with the query, â??why do you not go to the heathens? We already have Christianity.â? The answer must obviously be: â??Because we believe in a restored, revealed religion and church.â? (A MARVELOUS WORK and a WONDER, LeGrand Richards, p.2)

Jesus said:

â??Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.â? And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:29-30)

But He answered and said, â??It is written, â??Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.â?? â? (Matthew 4:4)

Peter himself confirms Paulâ??s calling:

But know this first of all that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2 Peter 1:20)

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvationâ??as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

Itâ??s not a matter of elevating Paulâ??s words above Jesus or any others for that matter. It is for establishing the content/context of our faith, in both practice and belief (doctrinally speaking) with all that is taught (practice typically follows from belief). Paul happens to hold a position of relevant importance when it comes to correcting errors and establishing proper understanding of the truth as â??delivered to the saintsâ?:

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, . . . (Acts 17:11-12a)

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. (Colossians 4:16)

I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren. (1 Thessalonians 5:27)

But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:14-15)

And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:25-28)

[paulhadik]

Don't confuse the doctrine of once saved with the fraudelent teachings of easy believism.

We trust that God through Christ is the Author and Finisher of our Faith. That He quickened us from death to life and that He will sustain us in His grace.

Easy believism is the heresy of praying a prayer then one is saved regardless of the fact that there is no spiritual fruit in ones life.

There is a major difference. Neither Christ nor Paul taught the latter.

[Son]

Don't confuse the doctrine of once saved with the fraudelent teachings of easy believism.

We trust that God through Christ is the Author and Finisher of our Faith. That He quickened us from death to life and that He will sustain us in His grace.

Easy believism is the heresy of praying a prayer then one is saved regardless of the fact that there is no spiritual fruit in ones life.

There is a major difference. Neither Christ nor Paul taught the latter.

If people that believe as you are already quickened from death to life why are the graves contradicting this.

If you keep my sayings, you shall not see death - Jesus.

This is quite a bit different than Salvation.

To CoolRok7 ; John the beloved has not tasted of death. As well as some that were standing there, as quoted in Matthew by Jesus.

[bluebell]

thanks coolrok for taking the time to answer so indepth. I know that it's time consuming and i appreciate it.

The Mormon Church is not the author of the Bible except for the JST which is not based on any manuscript but comes from the mind of Joseph Smith. This is where the conflict, as it relates to the points you raise, has its roots.

I guess i don't see why the conflict comes from this point.

Just as protestants don't believe that Paul is the author of his words but rather God is-LDS view their other scriptures the same way.

The Church is not the author of ANY LDS scriptures-they all come from God.

Now, i know you disagree with that-which is to be expected-but i don't understand how us disagreeing about which writings come from God and which don't is the cause of my conflict with some mainstream Christians' views and usage of the words of Paul.

The Bible is the overall document of the Jewish/Christian faith as of the first century (it wasnâ??t catalogued so to speak until the 4th century but nevertheless written (New Testament) in the first century. The last of the apostles, John, died at around the turn of the first century. It is from that collection of documents (Scripture) that the doctrinal basis for Christian belief comes from.

Except for the belief that John died around the turn of the century, i have no arguement with this statement.

It would be helpful I think to understand the content/sequence of the historical debates that have taken place since the first century (even during) and the different groupings that began to form due to the spreading of the Good News of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. The message of the Gospel was being taken to the Gentiles as well as the Jewish people, early on in the first century. This often resulted in the Jerusalem leadership getting together to discuss these issues as they were being debated (Acts 15 for example).

Agreed.

Itâ??s not a matter of trumping Jamesâ?? words (or any others for that matter) with Paulâ??s. Those who are not Mormon believe that specific Mormon doctrine is not Biblical. It appears to us that Mormons use the Bible as a stepping stone to arrive at false conclusions using their own â??scriptureâ? concerning how one should understand doctrines that are always in conflict with those outside their religious â??traditionâ?.

I understand that that is how LDS doctrine appears to most mainstream Christians.

But likewise, LDS understand much of protestant doctrine in the same way.

It just seems like you 'wreste' the scriptures to arrive at faulty interpretations to support beliefs that can't be supported any other way.

In other words, what you see 'us' as doing with the scriptures we see 'you' doing with the scriptures as well so we are in agreement that each other is wrong through faulty interpretation, if we agree on little else.

But what does this have to do emphasis most protestant religions put upon paul's words when they don't put that same emphasis on james' words?

I've NEVER had a protestant quote james to me when we are talking about the relationship between faith and works-never, and i served a mission and have had many a conversation with protestants on the topic.

I always have to bring it up first and if i don't bring it up-no one does.

Which seems weird to me because James teaches a great deal on the subject and it seems like any good discussion on what the bible has to say concerning the topic would HAVE to include his words as well as Paul's.

I certainly don't expect them to ignore what Paul has to say about it all-but it's weird, if they believe that james' words are equal to pauls' that 'they' (the ones i've spoken with which does not include ALL of mainstream Christiantiy of course) ignore james almost altogether when this topic comes up.

A lot of Paulâ??s writings were directed at these events that were being written about in his letters. These were being recorded and sent to the various groups he was meeting with on his missionary journeys. He was being directed by both the Holy Spirit as well as the Church in Jerusalem (the book of Acts records a lot of these events of Peter and Paul, along with the others mentioned).

agreed.

The answer to your question, I think, is to offer a probable reason (as I understand the Mormon view of things) for the misunderstanding of the context of the two arguments being presented. Paulâ??s discussion concerning justification is primarily before God while Jamesâ?? is before men. They both appeal back to the offering of Isaac as the sacrifice Abraham was instructed to accomplish (prophetic of Jesus) as an act of obedience (Romans 3, 4; James 1, 2).

while i disagree that james was speaking of being justified before men, i understand what you are saying here.

Paul says in Romans that Abraham was justified before he did anything as it was his heart condition that God knew beforehand that Abraham would be willing to do what He asked. James was appealing to what people actually were doing and on that basis made a judgment concerning faith/works. They are not in opposition to each other. A lot of people donâ??t seem to have this understanding which leads to the confusion that many have in the discussions Iâ??ve been involved in or have listened to.

LDS do not believe the two discourses are in opposition to each other-even without interpreting james to be speaking of justification before men, so i agree that the two only contradict each other if people interpret them wrong and many people probably do.

I personally donâ??t have any issues with either Jamesâ?? or Paulâ??s points that are made. They are not in opposition to each other but are often understood to be.

agreed.

Again, it is not that Paulâ??s wordâ??s trumps anyone else. It is the context/setting of where the appropriate answers, depending on the context of the question/questions being asked, comes from. Paul was highly trained in things Jewish (the Law for example). Paul was not just the average Jew. He was well trained and quite knowledgeable.

I understand this concerning paul's training-but i don't think i'm understanding your point here.

Because most mainstream Christians that i have spoken with do not really know or care that paul studied under a famous Jewish rabbi etc., i'm not sure such knowledge could be their motivation.

Most simply believe him to be authoratative because of His call from Christ (which i agree with) so i'm not sure their motivation for quoting paul instead of james has anything to do with them understanding paul's credentials in jewish law.

He was actually vehemently in opposition to things Christian until his road to Damascus experience which totally changed his life as Jesus personally appeared to him. This is why Paulâ??s authority is unquestionable.

Agreed. But it is funny to hear you say this because the same thing happened to JS yet his authority is CONSTANTLY questioned-that's a topic for another time though.

Judaism and Christianity are one and the same. The term Christ is Greek for the â??anointed oneâ? which in Hebrew is â??Messiahâ?. Jesus is the Messiah of the Hebrew/Christian belief system (Isaiah 53; Acts 9).

Agreed. LDS believe this as well. They are not two separate religions but one.

If you read through the Book of Acts, you would see that Paul would always go to the Jewish Synagogues and preach the Gospel to them first, then on to the Gentiles.

Yes, i've read Acts and i have seen that-not sure what this lesson the paul has to do with my questions though.

The Gospel doesnâ??t change in the Bible, regardless of whom it is that writes about it. Itâ??s just that Paul gives a succinct definition of what the Gospel is. He is often appealed to because he states very clearly what the Gospel is:

Yes, paul teaches that the Good News of Christ (Gospel) is that He died for our sins and was resurrected-that is agreed.

Very simply put, is the fact of the resurrection of Jesusâ?? flesh and bone body (that was born of the virgin Mary) that died on the cross and rose again on the third day just as the Scriptures (Old Testament) said Messiah would (belief in that Gospel is how one is brought to salvation).

All agreed. I've been taught this definition of 'the gospel' since i was a child at church in sunday school and sacrament meetings.

The reason behind it is that what Paul wrote is Scripture! It is no different for Mormons or any other group regarding religious belief. Joseph Smith and those that follow him in leadership positions, are the authorities whose words Mormons quote for their views (which are authoritative):

But your reason does not match their actions.

For what James, for example, wrote is scripture as well-but they don't spend as much time quoting James to me as they do Paul-why? If both are equal in authority and both teach about the relationship between grace and works and salvation-they why focus on only one of them?

Paul happens to hold a position of relevant importance when it comes to correcting errors and establishing proper understanding of the truth as â??delivered to the saintsâ?:

Why? Why does Paul hold a position of relevant importance when it comes to correcting errors and establishing proper understanding?

You've hit exactly on my question with this last statement.

WHY is paul the authority that is used to clarify what every other writer (even Christ's words written by others) teaches about the Gospel?

Why do most mainstream Christians filter everything anyone else says through Paul if he really isn't more authoritative than they are?

[bluebell]

Don't confuse the doctrine of once saved with the fraudelent teachings of easy believism.

We trust that God through Christ is the Author and Finisher of our Faith. That He quickened us from death to life and that He will sustain us in His grace.

Easy believism is the heresy of praying a prayer then one is saved regardless of the fact that there is no spiritual fruit in ones life.

There is a major difference. Neither Christ nor Paul taught the latter.

I agree that neither taught easy believeism-yet i come in contact with mainstream Christians who claim they did all the time.

I even had one hand me a pamphlet telling me the exact prayer i was to say and then i would be saved for ever more regardless of what else i did in life.

And they quoted the scriptures of Paul to defend the belief.

Which says to me that they are definitely putting the words of Paul above the words of Christ-which is where my question comes from.

[Son]

I agree that neither taught easy believeism-yet i come in contact with mainstream Christians who claim they did all the time.

I even had one hand me a pamphlet telling me the exact prayer i was to say and then i would be saved for ever more regardless of what else i did in life.

And they quoted the scriptures of Paul to defend the belief.

Which says to me that they are definitely putting the words of Paul above the words of Christ-which is where my question comes from.

I think you have your answer bluebell,

Now take it a step further and relate it to how all religions, have fallen into the same trap. Some more than others, but the snare of Satan is all around.

Not until we rise up and grow beyond the crib that is too short, and the covering that won't comfort , will we be able to see the face of Christ and know as we are known.

Rend the veil, it is possible here, right where we stand.

son

[solomarineris]

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

Why? Are you afraid to tell them apostle Paul was actually a "Bigot"?

And prove it by his writings?

No shame in that.

[bluebell]

Why? Are you afraid to tell them apostle Paul was actually a "Bigot"?

And prove it by his writings?

No shame in that.

I'm not understanding your post solo....

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

And then you reply with-'Why?'

That doesn't make sense to me-why am i noticing that mainstream Christians have their own issues with leaders in the early church?

I'm noticing it because of the conversations i've had with them.

But your remaining words seem to go off on another tangent about the character of Paul which seems to have little to do with your first question of 'why' so i think i need some clarification to respond to the post properly.