Can you reject Paul and still be a Christian?

[Joseph Antley]

I've heard non-LDS Christians say something along the lines of, Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved? Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Why or why not?

[structurecop]

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Of course they can. Where did Jesus say "unless he believes on me (and my buddy Paul) he can't be saved"?

[ttribe]

Of course they can. Where did Jesus say "unless he believes on me (and my buddy Paul) he can't be saved"?

Yeah...but you probably think those Mormons are Christian too. Obviously, you're opinion won't be very helpful.

[structurecop]

Yeah...but you probably think those Mormons are Christian too. Obviously, you're opinion won't be very helpful.

I seem to recall a FAIR guy (Baron?) doing a fireside for local Christians to come hear about LDS beliefs, and one of the LDS apologists posed that question as a defense of JS. The Christians are supposed to answer "well, no, but..."

[Uncle Dale]

I've heard non-LDS Christians say something along the lines of, Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved? Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Why or why not?

It was Paul's congregation at Antioch who were first called by that term.

Jesus never called himself a Christian. I doubt that Stephen ever called

himself by that name -- nor James the brother of Jesus.

The name attaches most strongly to Paul's followers. Perhaps Peter also

approved of the term. If Peter and Paul can be set to one side, then

perhaps a Jesus-centered religion could be conceived of, without them.

What ever that might be, it probably would not look much like the

post-Pentecost apostolic church we are all familiar with.

UD

[stux]

I have known a few Christians that have rejected Paul as an apostle and his writings. Some even determined that Paul had other motives and still remained a persecutor and acted as a wolf in sheep's clothing. I cannot recall all the evidences they provided and used to determine this line of thought, but that was their consensus regarding Paul. Just thought I would throw that out.

Personally I love Paul's epistles and his writings have been some of my favorite. I even remember trying to point out some of the gems contained in the Bible from Paul which some accepted, yet rejected Paul still.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Without Paul....maybe the Mormons would be the only ones called Christians since that word shows up in the Book of Mormon several times.

[Uncle Dale]

Without Paul....maybe the Mormons would be the only ones called Christians since that word shows up in the Book of Mormon several times.

Well before Paul's congregation at Antioch.

If the BoM has been correctly "translated,"

the the Antioch members were in no way the

first Christians, and Jesus pre-approved the

term decades before his earthly ministry.

Should Mormons advertise this fact abroad, as they

try to talk Baptists, etc. out of remaining in

the Gentile sects? A new conversion argument?

I wonder....

UD

[ttribe]

Well before Paul's congregation at Antioch.

If the BoM has been correctly "translated,"

the the Antioch members were in no way the

first Christians, and Jesus pre-approved the

term decades before his earthly ministry.

Should Mormons advertise this fact abroad, as they

try to talk Baptists, etc. out of remaining in

the Gentile sects? A new conversion argument?

I wonder....

UD

Or, it really is a translation and the term "Christians" is the modern-day equivalent of whatever was actually used on the BoM plates. Nah...never mind...that would fall outside the pet theory.

[3DOP]

I've heard non-LDS Christians say something along the lines of, Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved? Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Why or why not?

Q: Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved?

A: You all (LDS) don't say or believe that do you? Regardless, if a Restoration was necessary, and if you thought your interlocutor was reasonable, you could argue that to believe the Restoration Gospel of Joseph Smith is to believe Christ.

Q: Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

A: It is very helpful to believe and not reject those whom Christ has sent. Christ wrote no Scripture. Who are the Scriptureless Christians who ask, "Isn't Jesus Christ enough?"

Q: Can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian?

A: As a Catholic considering the welfare of non-Catholics, it matters little whether one is "considered a Christian". If someone claims to be a follower of Christ, with or without an Apostle or Prophet accepted by someone else, it seems difficult to categorize that person among the non-Christians.

Q: Can they still be saved?

A: With God all things are possible. The standard is the same for all. All persons to be saved must die in a state of grace and one may have hope for anyone.

[Hoops22]

I've heard non-LDS Christians say something along the lines of, Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved? Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Why or why not?

I won't comment on whether someone is saved or not. However, one can not reject Paul and have any sort of understanding of what the gospel is.

[structurecop]

I won't comment on whether someone is saved or not. However, one can not reject Paul and have any sort of understanding of what the gospel is.

Why not? What about early Saints who heard the news from one of the seventy, were baptized, then died before Paul ever showed up? Do they have any sort of understanding?

[Uncle Dale]

Why not? What about early Saints who heard the news from one of the seventy, were baptized, then died before Paul ever showed up? Do they have any sort of understanding?

Perhaps they are damned, along with Stephen and James.

If Paul is the necessary king-pin of Christianity, then the

Gospel preached by Jesus must have been about this forthcoming

Master Spirit, the latchet of whose sandals Jesus was unworthy

to unloosen.

UD

[structurecop]

Perhaps they are damned, along with Stephen and James.

If Paul is the necessary king-pin of Christianity, then the

Gospel preached by Jesus must have been about this forthcoming

Master Spirit, the latchet of whose sandals Jesus was unworthy

to unloosen.

UD

[Ron Beron]

I've heard non-LDS Christians say something along the lines of, Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved? Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Why or why not?

Absolutely. I would be quick to point out that Paul had in many ways rejected Jesus' earthly teachings on the Law and other Mosaic prohibitions as well as adding to a mistaken Christology.

[Deborah]

However, one can not reject Paul and have any sort of understanding of what the gospel is.

So you belong to the Church of Paul and not the Church of Christ. That explains a lot.

[bluebell]

I think the only Christians that believe one has to believe in Paul to be Christians are protestants who adhere to the doctrine that true Christians must believe in sola scriptura.

There is no way for someone to adhere to sola scriptura AND reject Paul.

[Joseph Antley]

So you belong to the Church of Paul and not the Church of Christ. That explains a lot.

Do you belong to the Church of Joseph Smith?

[Vance]

I won't comment on whether someone is saved or not. However, one can not reject Paul and have any sort of understanding of what the gospel is.

So, all those that accepted the gospel prior to Paul didn't really get the "real" gospel?

Is this more of your two gospels theory?

I submit that if your gospel is only based upon the one witness (Paul) then you are in violation of the the words of Paul found here.

2 Cor. 13:1 . . . In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Where/who is your second witness?

[Uncle Dale]

...

in violation of the the words of Paul found here.

...

Perhaps there is a way around this difficulty -- by simply moving Paul's

writings out of the canon and into a respectable position on the shelves

among the early Church Fathers.

Early worthies like Justin Martyr, Origen, etc. remain highly respected.

Their opinions and interpretations are regularly consulted in attempts

to discern the doctrines and practices of apostolic Christianity. But

they are not considered to be infallible mouthpieces for God's revelation.

If Paul advises that I take a little wine to settle my stomach, need I

necessarily place that counsel on the same level of Divine inspiration

as the Lord's Prayer, or the Decalogue?

Clearly there are sections of Paul's writings which even he did not take

to be the perfect and unalterable Holy Word of God.

So -- why must we take them to be that? Why do they remain in the canon?

If Paul's lost third letter to the Corinthians is discovered next week,

would it automatically become part of the Bible -- just because Paul's

words are there recorded, giving pastoral advice to his flock?

UD

.

[Mike Reed]

The Ebionites rejected Paul.

[Uncle Dale]

The Ebionites rejected Paul.

Yeah -- the pseudo-Clementine writings are full of hints at this rejection.

I'm not at all convinced that James accept Paul as an Apostle -- or, at least

not in the sense that we moderns use the word.

Nor am I convinced that Paul was fully Jewish. He may have been about as

"Jewish" as Herod's family -- that is, he could claim to be Abraham's seed,

living within Jewish culture as a fringe member of that society. With a

Roman father (no matter the bloodline), I'm not even sure he was solidly

attached to the "fringes" of Jewish society.

Still, he could enter the temple -- so somebody in his family had either

been a convert (many were made in the days of the Maccabees) or actually

married into the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul all too easily dismisses the Mosaic covenant and goes back to Abraham

for his model. That sounds suspiciously like what an Idumanean might do.

UD

[Deborah]

Do you belong to the Church of Joseph Smith?

What does that mean? Hoops has constantly praised Paul as the epitome of Christian worship.

[Joseph Antley]

The Ebionites rejected Paul.

I'm pretty certain that modern Evangelicals wouldn't have considered the Ebionites Christians.

Actually, I'm not sure that Evangelicals would have considered any of the early Christians as Christians.

[Ron Beron]

Yeah -- the pseudo-Clementine writings are full of hints at this rejection.

I'm not at all convinced that James accept Paul as an Apostle -- or, at least

not in the sense that we moderns use the word.

Nor am I convinced that Paul was fully Jewish. He may have been about as

"Jewish" as Herod's family -- that is, he could claim to be Abraham's seed,

living within Jewish culture as a fringe member of that society. With a

Roman father (no matter the bloodline), I'm not even sure he was solidly

attached to the "fringes" of Jewish society.

Still, he could enter the temple -- so somebody in his family had either

been a convert (many were made in the days of the Maccabees) or actually

married into the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul all too easily dismisses the Mosaic covenant and goes back to Abraham

for his model. That sounds suspiciously like what an Idumanean might do.

UD

And here I am thinking I was the only one who thought this.