Peter's warning about misinterpreting Paul

jmdrake

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
51,924
Dear friends, I write this because I've seen this pattern all too many times. I've seen Christians talk about a "Pauline gospel" or saying things like "the rest of the Bible must be interpreted based on (this person's understanding of) this writing by Paul". Where is it in the Bible that Paul is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end? Isn't that title reserved for Jesus? And as such, shouldn't Jesus' own words be the gold standard for how the rest of the Bible should be interpreted? I have see people simply ignore direct quotations of Jesus, not address what Jesus said, then say "Well your exegesis must be wrong because it disagrees with my understanding of how grace works according to the writings of Paul." How is that biblically sound? What does the Bible say about elevating Paul's writings, or rather a particular interpretation of Paul's writings, over the rest of scripture? Here is what Peter had to say:

2 Peter 3:14-18
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

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;

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.

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.

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.


Notice the context of the passage. Peter is exhorting believers to be found "in peace, without spot, and blameless". The idea put forward by some that the Christ wanted people to "give up on holiness" is rejected in the verse 14. In verse 18 Peter talks about grace yes, but he talks about "growing in grace". A plant that is not growing is dead. (Reference James saying that faith without works is dead). But verse 15-17 is the meat of the passage. Peter expresses "love" for Paul and his writings. But Peter is concerned that some are misinterpreting Paul "to their own destruction" and are being "led away with the error of the wicked" so that they might "fall from their own stedfastness".

Hmmm....fall from their own stedfastness. So it's possible that an overemphasis of the "Pauline gospel" might be what leads one to destruction and to "fall from grace"? Well...according to Peter that seems to be the case.

So what is the proper perspective of Paul's writings? He was like a new testament spiritual advice columnist. He wrote letters, mostly to churches but some to individual people, to give them advice about their specific situations. And yes much, if not all, of that advice is applicable to Christians everywhere. In contrast, Peter, James, John and Jude wrote "general epistles" that were not targeted to any specific situation. Hebrews, sandwiched in between Paul's epistles and the general epistles, can be seen someone as a "general epistle" as there were Jews living everywhere, but also as a targeted epistle because it was aimed at people with the same culture just like Romans was written to people living in the same city. James, while not specifically addressing Paul as Peter did, seemed intentional in trying to correct potential misinterpretations of Paul's writings, declaring that "faith without works is dead" and that such a dead faith cannot save you. John seemed intent on making sure that people understood that God is love, universal love, and that Jesus died for the sins of all declaring Jesus was the "propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world". Jude's entire letter seems aimed at stopping people who had "crept in unawares" and were "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness" and "denying...our Lord Jesus Christ."

I know this post will fall on deaf ears for those who need to hear it most. But consider this. If Peter was so worried that people would misinterpret Paul to their own destruction, don't you owe it to yourself to interpret Paul's writings in the light of the rest of scripture as opposed to interpreting the rest of scripture in the light of Paul's writings? Think about it.
 
The proper way to understand the writings of Paul is the same way to understand any writing in the Holy Scripture, and that is through the lens of the Church and not through one's own fallible interpretation.
 
The proper way to understand the writings of Paul is the same way to understand any writing in the Holy Scripture, and that is through the lens of the Church and not through one's own fallible interpretation.

Perhaps. But I don't even think that is safe. While your church and the Roman church are close there are clear doctrinal differences. That can only mean that even the "church" is fallible. I'm all for reading the writings of anyone including the "holy fathers" as you put it, be they Roman or Orthodox, but always keeping in mind that in the end God expects me to "study to show myself approved a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth" and to follow the path of the Bereans who were "more noble than those at Thessolinica" because the Bereans received Paul's words with gladness but then "searched the scriptures" to make sure those things were true. I believe the promise of the Holy Spirit that He will lead everyone seeking the kingdom of God into all truth. That's my lens.
 
Perhaps. But I don't even think that is safe. While your church and the Roman church are close there are clear doctrinal differences. That can only mean that even the "church" is fallible. I'm all for reading the writings of anyone including the "holy fathers" as you put it, be they Roman or Orthodox, but always keeping in mind that in the end God expects me to "study to show myself approved a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth" and to follow the path of the Bereans who were "more noble than those at Thessolinica" because the Bereans received Paul's words with gladness but then "searched the scriptures" to make sure those things were true. I believe the promise of the Holy Spirit that He will lead everyone seeking the kingdom of God into all truth. That's my lens.

Your lens < lens of the Church
 
Your lens < lens of the Church

My lens is the Holy Spirit. I don't think He < the Church. ;) Anyway, do you have anything to say about my original post itself, or do you intend to derail the thread into yet another discussion that we've had 100 times already? Your choice.
 
My lens is the Holy Spirit. I don't think He < the Church. ;) Anyway, do you have anything to say about my original post itself, or do you intend to derail the thread into yet another discussion that we've had 100 times already? Your choice.

Your lens is your own, and not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit. And if you understood that the Church is the Body of Christ as described in the Holy Scriptures, you wouldn't say He < the Church. ;)

And I am not derailing this thread because I am addressing where your own misunderstanding of Paul is, and that is because you are relying on your interpretation and not humbling yourself as you should. Luckily for St. Peter, he humbled himself before the Church when he was wrong, and for this he is a saint. St. Paul did the same...
 
Last edited:
Your lens is your own, and not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit. And if you understood that the Church is the Body of Christ as described in the Holy Scriptures, you wouldn't say He < the Church. ;)

In some places the church is referred to as the bride of Christ. And which church? Yours? Sorry not joining. The Roman church? You agree with them...except when you don't. Christ described the church as "where 2 or 3 or gathered". It's not this monolithic institution you make it out to be. If it is, and if you're right, then the church has been official dead in the west since the "great schism". If the church is cellular, like coral, then everytime you have 2 or 3 Christians sincerely seeking Christ, you have "the church".

And I am not derailing this thread because I am addressing where your own misunderstanding of Paul is, and that is because you are relying on your interpretation and not humbling yourself as you should. Luckily for St. Peter, he humbled himself before the Church when he was wrong, and for this he is a saint. St. Paul did the same...

Really? I'm "misunderstanding Paul"? Pray tell how. Because I all see is you lifting yourself up in the name of lifting up "your church" and ignoring the subject and trying to twist it into yet another argument. Sorry, but I'm not biting this time. I'm not sure how I have said anything in the OP that even disagrees with any position you have taken. In fact I'm sure I haven't. But if you want to enlighten me oh wise one, talk about my "misunderstanding" instead of attempting to change the subject. Humble yourself. Then worry about the spec in your brother's eye.
 
In some places the church is referred to as the bride of Christ. And which church? Yours? Sorry not joining. The Roman church? You agree with them...except when you don't. Christ described the church as "where 2 or 3 or gathered". It's not this monolithic institution you make it out to be. If it is, and if you're right, then the church has been official dead in the west since the "great schism". If the church is cellular, like coral, then everytime you have 2 or 3 Christians sincerely seeking Christ, you have "the church".
The Church is the Bride of Christ. That happens to be the Orthodox Church. You don't have to join, and your joining or not doesnt change that fact. The Roman Church split from the Church in the Great Schism, that doesn't mean the Church disappeared, it means they split from it. And while it is true that where two or three faithful are together, Christ is in their midst, it doesn't take away that Christ established a living Church with baptized members. Are you saying that the Arians who split away from the Church were members of this Church, even as they worshipped a different God?

Really? I'm "misunderstanding Paul"? Pray tell how. Because I all see is you lifting yourself up in the name of lifting up "your church" and ignoring the subject and trying to twist it into yet another argument. Sorry, but I'm not biting this time. I'm not sure how I have said anything in the OP that even disagrees with any position you have taken. In fact I'm sure I haven't. But if you want to enlighten me oh wise one, talk about my "misunderstanding" instead of attempting to change the subject. Humble yourself. Then worry about the spec in your brother's eye.

I am sorry that it bothers you so much that I have pointed out your misunderstandings that you now mock me as 'wise one'. I am neither wise nor holy and more pertinently I am not stating anything to you that I have made up myself, but rely upon greater people then myself for understanding, knowing that I am a sinner and am easily fallible. Rather, it is you who is sure your understanding and intreptations are correct even if by doing so you ignore 2000 years of saints and martyrs and accuse them to of being wrong so that you can arrogantly claim you are right and that your lens is the 'Holy Spirit'. Mock my Church as you wish, but know that you are not mocking me by doing so and I don't feel the least bit threatened by it. Stronger men then you have fought against the Church and failed. It is you who is kicking against the goads by relying upon your own mind and I am simply trying to help you see that. If you wish to argue, then argue by yourself. You won't even read the writings of the earliest saints to see your error, I don't expect my own meager posts will do much.
 
TER, I don't mean any disrespect, but I mean this in earnestness. What if the present day church is heretical and has had the wrong interpretations for 1800 years or so? When I read Eusbius (spelling!) there already appears to be heresies within the early catholic church itself, including one such person needing to be baptized before he dies in order to be in good standing with the church in order to be saved.

The roman and orthodox traditions benefit from apostolic succession, which is critical, but Iraneus (sp?) based this on the fact that the Bishops that can prove succession can prove an orthodox intellectual tradition. If we have bishops today that blatantly ignore scripture and the earliest traditions (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) then they forfeit their right to claim apostolic succession. To me, that's a shame.

If I weren't convinced of this, I'd probably would have taken a vow of celibacy and become a monk years ago. I even prayed to God for guidance on this, so I do not know how else to think.
 
Last edited:
The proper way to understand the writings of Paul is the same way to understand any writing in the Holy Scripture, and that is through the lens of the Church and not through one's own fallible interpretation.

+rep
 
  • Like
Reactions: TER
My lens is the Holy Spirit. I don't think He < the Church. ;) Anyway, do you have anything to say about my original post itself, or do you intend to derail the thread into yet another discussion that we've had 100 times already? Your choice.
This.
 
TER, I don't mean any disrespect, but I mean this in earnestness. What if the present day church is heretical and has had the wrong interpretations for 1800 years or so?

You are a rational human being, so think on this: What church is more likely heretical, one which goes back 200 years or one which goes back 2000 years?


The roman and orthodox traditions benefit from apostolic succession, which is critical, but Iraneus (sp?) based this on the fact that the Bishops that can prove succession can prove an orthodox intellectual tradition. If we have bishops today that blatantly ignore scripture and the earliest traditions (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) then they forfeit their right to claim apostolic succession. To me, that's a shame.

That is not a shame! That is exactly as it should be! Those Bishops who stray from their priestly office by adding innovations to the faith and who have strayed from the written and oral traditions and the narrow path forfeit themselves from their priestly rank. The Church has still endured in spite of this, for the truth has always in the end been defended, and this is not true for any other reason then by the grace of God.

If I weren't convinced of this, I'd probably would have taken a vow of celibacy and become a monk years ago. I even prayed to God for guidance on this, so I do not know how else to think.

I have done the same my brother. We are closer then you think.
 
Last edited:
My lens is the Holy Spirit.

If that's true then why are there literally thousands of different interpretations of virtually every single passage in the Bible by literally thousands of different Protestant denominations? Is the Holy Spirit really that indecisive and inconsistent?
 
Last edited:
You are a rational human being, so think on this: What church is more likely heretical, one which goes back 200 years or one which goes back 2000 years?
1800 years of course, but one could also argue that the 1800 year old one had 1800 years to deviate and a reformed movement is more accurate.

That is not a shame! That is exactly as it should be! Those Bishops who stray from their priestly office by adding innovations to the faith and who have strayed from the written and oral traditions and the narrow path forfeit themselves from their priestly rank. The Church has still endured in spite of this, for the truth has always in the end been defended, and this is not true for any other reason then by the grace of God.
It's a shame because, in my mind, the intellectual tradition has been lost, so we are left with our own poor judgment.

I have done the same my brother. We are closer then you think.
How did that work out?
 
1800 years of course, but one could also argue that the 1800 year old one had 1800 years to deviate and a reformed movement is more accurate.

Then argue it, but then show me the proof that that is the more accurate. In fact, the earliest writings and practices and worship speak directly against such innovative doctrines to be accurate. Instead, taking bits of Scripture here and there often time out of context and applying innovative interpretations.

How did that work out?

I fell in love with my wife.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry that it bothers you so much that I have pointed out your misunderstandings that you now mock me as 'wise one'.

That's just it. You haven't pointed out a misunderstanding. At least not in this thread. All you've done is attempted to change the subject. And, by your own standard, that's rude. When Sola_Fide did that to your thread you called him out on being rude and I agreed. In the Mormon thread I actually went along with where the OP was going, since he brought up the priesthood belief of Mormons, and you mocked me behind the scenes. And now you're doing what you say you don't like? Follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you want your own threads derailed, keep it up. If you want to correct my "misunderstanding about Paul" then talk about Paul and stop trying to change the subject to your pet topic.
 
If that's true then why are there literally thousands of different interpretations of virtually every single passage in the Bible by literally thousands of different Protestant denominations? Is the Holy Spirit really that indecisive and inconsistent?

There is a split between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church that you and TER gloss over when it suits you. Is the Holy Spirit really that indecisive and inconsistent? Is the Bishop of Rome really the "head of the church" as he claims or is he "first among equals" as the Orthodox church claims? You can't have it both ways. You can't honestly "+rep" TER for upholding "the church" when you don't belong to the same church.
 
Last edited:
There is a split between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church that you and TER gloss over when it suits you. Is the Holy Spirit really that indecisive and inconsistent? Is the Bishop of Rome really the "head of the church" as he claims or is he "first among equals" as the Orthodox church claims? You can't have it both ways. You can't honestly "+rep" TER for upholding "the church" when you don't belong to the same church.

That is because while we have our differences, our love for one another and respect for one another superceedes any other feeling we have for one another.
 
That's just it. You haven't pointed out a misunderstanding. At least not in this thread. All you've done is attempted to change the subject. And, by your own standard, that's rude. When Sola_Fide did that to your thread you called him out on being rude and I agreed. In the Mormon thread I actually went along with where the OP was going, since he brought up the priesthood belief of Mormons, and you mocked me behind the scenes. And now you're doing what you say you don't like? Follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you want your own threads derailed, keep it up. If you want to correct my "misunderstanding about Paul" then talk about Paul and stop trying to change the subject to your pet topic.

You made a thread about misunderstanding the writings of Paul, I point out that you misunderstand him as well, and then that means I am derailing the thread? What did you want us to do, to simply accept what you said as true?
 
You are a rational human being, so think on this: What church is more likely heretical, one which goes back 200 years or one which goes back 2000 years?

That is not a shame! That is exactly as it should be! Those Bishops who stray from their priestly office by adding innovations to the faith and who have strayed from the written and oral traditions and the narrow path forfeit themselves from their priestly rank. The Church has still endured in spite of this, for the truth has always in the end been defended, and this is not true for any other reason then by the grace of God.

Yes or no. Do you believe the Roman bishop has strayed away from the priestly office?
 
Back
Top