Follow Paul or Christ?

[Sinthesis]

This seems like a false distinction that should not be taught. I learn from the entire bible, not just Paul's writings.

 

[Brother Mike]

I don't hear any anointing on his voice through the Holy Spirit........... seems like the Guy must not speak in tongues because the teaching anointing is just not there. However, the guy seems to love the Lord and seems to really enjoy the Word of God with no formal Bible training. Can't find any fault in that and if you followed what Paul had written I think we would do great if we got at least half of it right in our walk.

Not guilty!!!! He is just really impressed with Paul's Gospel which Paul called it his gospel. In fact, Jesus did not preach the Gospel of Christ because Jesus had yet to go to the cross, the Good news is he was raised from the dead so in that sense it is Paul's Gosple.

Mike.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

1 Corinthians 1:12-17

When I read the OP, I instantly recognized Les is probably referring to this verse:

"1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (NIV)

Apparently, he's using this verse to support the misguided doctrine of 'two gospels'.

 

[jasoncran]

Here is a pretty good objective sorce on this. I've not read all the way through, but check it out. http://http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm

bad link

 

[Danus]

Here is a pretty good objective sorce on this. I've not read all the way through, but check it out. http://http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm

bad link

Sorry. Lets try it again,
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm

 

[Eventide]

IMO there is no difference between following Paul or following Christ.

Although that said, there is a massive difference between the earthly entity of Israel which was under the dispensation of the LAW as compared to the church of God which is under His grace..

For the LAW was given by Moses but GRACE and TRUTH came by Jesus Christ.

It's just as much of an error to dismiss the distinction between the Israel of God and the church as it is to over emphasize it.

Israel is blinded in part until the fulness of the GENTILES be come in... and ignoring this mystery results in one thing.. men becoming wise in their own conceits. But talk about that to most Christians and they're typically oblivious to it.

I don't see folks raising issues about that extreme... and that is the same thing imo...

Ignoring the mystery is just as bad but most won't even go there.

 

[josefnospam]

As well and as much as Paul did, he's a man who needed the same Saviour we worship. We are NOT to follow men but a holy and righteous God and there is only one. His name is Jesus Christ. Paul spoke of and about him. Worship God, not a man.

 

[Deborah13]

Israel is blinded in part until the fulness of the GENTILES be come in... and ignoring this mystery results in one thing.. men becoming wise in their own conceits

Opps. Forgot which thread this was sorry.

 

[reba]

totopic sorry deb

 

[Deborah13]

Yikes, I did want to be here though!

So I read first a lesson on Les Feldrick's site and then the article that Danus posted.
I have seen LF on TV and listen for a few mins., a few times. I never heard anything like this but then it seemed I really didn't hear. I always had trouble staying focused on what he was saying.

I don't like what he's teaching on two gospels, and that is what it is. To me it just creates further division in the body of Christ. And it's just plain not scriptural.
But the teaching that bothered me the most was that of no need for repentance. What!
How does one say repentance is not for the Church? If you take away repentance what happens to renewing the mind by the Word, putting on the mind of Christ? That is the very meaning of repentance. If one does not repent how is one sanctified unto holiness?

 

[Danus]

A lot of times I think when we come across teachings that don't seem to square with scripture, we begin to worry that such teaching might take hold in the minds and hearts of others and some how take others away from the truth. However, I have come to believe that anyone led astray is NOT led astray from the truth, but from no truth to more no truth.

There are many little things we can disagree on that are not fundamental to the faith in Jesus Christ; infant baptism, speaking in tongues, ones free will in relation to accepting Christ....ect. These things, and may others, are not essential to the heart of faith in Christ Jesus, even though we sometimes want to make arguments for and against them. However, anyone indwelled with the spirit of God for HIS purpose into them, can see a twisted presentation on scripture, recognize it for what it is and move away from it.

The enemy is abound. Where the enemy gets to us, often the most, is in making us think he is able to take people away from the truth. he can not. All the enemy is doing is building a lie in the midst of a lie. Does the enemy infiltrate our churches sometimes? Yes he does.

There are tons of lies in this world that the devil has propagated. Many lies. Yet God is able to penetrate all of them, and reach whom will be reached. That has not changed and will not change. So just stand firm. Stay close to the truth for your own strength. Jesus did not say "BE" salt and light, He said "YOU ARE" salt and light. Take comfort in that and reflect His grace, mercy and love to this dark world.

Truth does not fail, it is not covered, or depleted by the devils lies, but if we seem afraid of the lies we don't shine as bright to the world. So then by standing firm in the truth we are more effective salt and light. We just need to sometimes work on being more effective salt and light.

Thank you @WIP for bringing this topic up. My question to you, since Les was allowed to speak at your church, what are your thoughts about your church? If Les where allowed to speak at my church I would be in mourning for the leadership of my church, if in fact my church where propagating that type of teaching. Surly others in your congregation are not settled well over this as well. Has anyone been discussing it?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But the teaching that bothered me the most was that of no need for repentance. What!
How does one say repentance is not for the Church?

Pretty amazing. Very sad.

Well one thing can be said for him, if he still teaches the way he did ten years ago when I saw him on TV, he's certainly not open to the charge of being charismatic and flamboyant, lol.

 

[Elijah674]

As I mentioned in another thread, Les Feldick was invited to speak at our church yesterday evening and many of us found ourselves choking on what he was preaching.

In a nutshell he basically said that we, as gentiles, are to follow Paul and not Christ. Now, he claimed that he was not putting Paul ahead of Christ but was basically spelling out the order of things so-to-speak. He put it this way, "Christ is in the lead, Paul follows Christ, and we follow Paul."

I believe I am a follower of Jesus the Christ. Yes, Paul was a great man and in my opinion was the greatest evangelist to ever walk the earth but he was and is not God and he is not my lord and savior.

Okay, has anyone else heard of this theology and what are your thoughts about it?

Acts 4:12 Is correct. And as in 2 Peter 3:16 it is stated correctly.

Paul was an human instrument used of God & did not EVER go against the Word of God when he is understood rightfully!

But why have one speak as this man did?

--Elijah

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Paul:


"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:12-14




Christ:


"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." -Luke 6:31






I would say that it is conclusive to follow Christ over Paul.

 

[Butch5]

As I mentioned in another thread, Les Feldick was invited to speak at our church yesterday evening and many of us found ourselves choking on what he was preaching.

In a nutshell he basically said that we, as gentiles, are to follow Paul and not Christ. Now, he claimed that he was not putting Paul ahead of Christ but was basically spelling out the order of things so-to-speak. He put it this way, "Christ is in the lead, Paul follows Christ, and we follow Paul."

I believe I am a follower of Jesus the Christ. Yes, Paul was a great man and in my opinion was the greatest evangelist to ever walk the earth but he was and is not God and he is not my lord and savior.

Okay, has anyone else heard of this theology and what are your thoughts about it?

While not acknowledged this is what much of modern Christianity does, they beasically follow Paul. Look at all of the Christians who say works play no role in salvation. They take a passage or two from Paul and argue this yet read through the Gospels and look at what Jesus said. 'He who keeps my commands loves me', he who doesn't keep my commands doesn't love me', strive to enter in a the strait gate. The hoir is comming when all will hear the voice of the Lord, those who did good will be raised to the resurrection of life those those who did evil to the resurrection of damnation. The sheep and the goats in Mathew 25, they're determined by their actions, the sheep go into eternal life and the goats to destruction. Mathew 7, depart from Me you who work iniquity, I never knew you. I could go on and on. That doesn't even include the apostles. John said,

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.​

(1Jo 2:3-5 KJV)

Even Paul whose words are used to make the erroneous claims that works play no role in salvation states that works playa role in salvation.

thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:​

(Rom 2:5-10 KJV)

Some take Paul's words out of context, make a theological doctrine and claim it is Biblical. However, a quick look at the words of Jesus show that it is not Biblical. It is simpl a false teaching that stems from the Reformation. It stems from the teachings of Luther.

 

[Sparkey]

I consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God, and knowing you, Edward, I'm sure you feel the same way about the bible. I would also agree with what you're saying because if I found something that I thought Paul was saying that went against what Jesus clearly taught? I'd follow what I know to be the clear truth. The problem about what Paul says was noticed by none other than his contemporary, also an Apostle.

Peter says that some of the things that Paul writes about are hard to understand. So rather than get all tripped up and forsake God over it, it is better to go with the clearly understood things. As a Moderator of the Apologetics and Theology forum I wish there were more who could take that to heart.

 

[Butch5]

I like Pauls writings and they do seem to be within the Lords teachings, however, I have heard Paul being denounced and the theory propagated that Saul did not feel that he was doing enough damage to the Christian faith as he could do from within, so he made up the story of the event which happened on the road to Damascus, and "became Christian" so that he could propagate enough subtle lies from within to lead men astray. It was suggested to rip Paul out of your NT and follow the Lords teachings directly.

Now all of that is some mans theory, but keep in mind that Paul wrote over half of the New Testament and is widely accepted by many to be an inspired one, an Apostle raised up for the Gentiles. Is it true? Perhaps, perhaps not. One thing I do know for sure...if you ever have doubt or find a discrepancy between Paul's writings and those of our Lord Jesus Christ...take the Lord Jesus teachings over Paul's.

I am not denouncing Paul, do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am merely saying that, when in doubt, put more stock in Jesus words than any other and follow Christ. We live in a time of deception, where deception is Satan's greatest tool...

Hi Edward,

In my post I did not mean to disparage Paul's writings in any way whatsoever. The point I was making is that many Christians take Paul's words out of context, form doctrine based on those passages taken out of context and then claim the doctrines are Christian. Any doctrine that teaches works play no role in salvation is at odds with the teachings of Jesus. However, many try to redefine Jesus' words to fit into this doctrine they're claiming is Paul's. They try to make Jesus fit their understanding of Paul, rather than making their understanding of Paul fit Jesus.

 

[John 8:32]

As I mentioned in another thread, Les Feldick was invited to speak at our church yesterday evening and many of us found ourselves choking on what he was preaching.

In a nutshell he basically said that we, as gentiles, are to follow Paul and not Christ. Now, he claimed that he was not putting Paul ahead of Christ but was basically spelling out the order of things so-to-speak. He put it this way, "Christ is in the lead, Paul follows Christ, and we follow Paul."

I believe I am a follower of Jesus the Christ. Yes, Paul was a great man and in my opinion was the greatest evangelist to ever walk the earth but he was and is not God and he is not my lord and savior.

Okay, has anyone else heard of this theology and what are your thoughts about it?

One hears it all the time...

Christ upheld the Law, yet people use some hard to be understood quotes from Paul to dismiss it. Here is an example...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Then someone stumbles across...

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

and concludes the Law is ended without taking this into account...

2Pe 3:15 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;
2Pe 3:16 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.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

So, in this example how do we grow in knowledge here?

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The word for end here is...

G5056
τέλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.

Means the point of aim, the result. Are there any other places the word is used and can we get a feel for it from the usage?

Jas 5:11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
1Pe 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Same word used here and we know that the end of our faith is not the obliteration of it, but rather the result. Same with the end of the Lord, is He obliterated? Of course not, the result or point of aim or goal is tender mercy and pity.

So, first and foremost keep our eyes (and ears) on the Father and Christ, then Paul. Paul does not contradict the Father and Christ, but in some of his "hard to be understood" passages, we must diligently compare what he teaches with the teachings of Christ.

 

[Butch5]

In my post I did not mean to disparage Paul's writings in any way whatsoever. The point I was making is that many Christians take Paul's words out of context, form doctrine based on those passages taken out of context and then claim the doctrines are Christian. Any doctrine that teaches works play no role in salvation is at odds with the teachings of Jesus. However, many try to redefine Jesus' words to fit into this doctrine they're claiming is Paul's. They try to make Jesus fit their understanding of Paul, rather than making their understanding of Paul fit Jesus.

Oh, I'm sorry brother, I did not mean to imply that you were disparaging Paul's words. I merely responded with the general ideations that I have heard before about Paul and his writings. Actually, some of Pauls words can seem to be incongruent with Jesus words at first glance and to be able to get the whole of it all to mesh together is not entirely easy about a few things. In which case, we should grasp Jesus words first and see how they fit to Paul...as you say. It sounds like we are on the same page brother.

I'm not against either's words. Especially Jesus! But while most of Pauls writings can be easily understood and give great advice to Christians that is easily understood, a little of what he wrote can perhaps give a misleading idea if not understood correctly. For instance, Paul says that we are not bound to the law, almost as if we shouldn't worry about following commandments or sinning. Many people hold to this, and in a way that almost seems like a blank check to sin, whereas Jesus is very clear about this. If you love me you will keep my commandments. Obey. That sort of thing.

Hi Edward,

I didn't think you were implying anything. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't give anyone that idea. I agree whole heartedly with what you've said here and believe it is another reason to make sure that we make Paul fit Jesus rather than making Jesus fit Paul. I agree that some of what Paul says is difficult to understand. I believe that is because Paul is writing letters. Whereas Jesus statements are historical. We don't have the letters that were written to Paul to get the context of what is being said between him and the churches he's addressing. I also believe that many Christians don't do the historical research to get an understanding of what Paul is dealing with. You mentioned Paul's saying we are not bound by Law. When we study the historical background of Paul's day we see that there were Jews in the churches teaching his converts that in addition to faith it was also necessary for them to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. This can be seen in both Acts 15, Galatians and Romans. In light of this it is easy to see why Paul would tell believers, "we are not bound by Law". However, modern Christians don't look at this background and as you pointed out the determine that law means any kind of Law at all. That is not what Paul is speaking of and as such they form doctrine that is in opposition to not only Paul but Jesus Himself.

 

[CORE]

We don't have the letters that were written to Paul to get the context of what is being said between him and the churches he's addressing. I also believe that many Christians don't do the historical research to get an understanding of what Paul is dealing with

Right on...and if some of Paul's writings were difficult to understand even back then, how much more difficult today?

Many Christians just don't have the skill set nor the time to delve into the history like a good pastor, and understandably so - that's why we have pastors.

That's why I think it's important to find a good verse by verse bible Church that can explain the historical, cultural and circumstantial context through biblical exposition....I mean, why wouldn't you?