Paulinist Tares: How Do We Treat Them?

What Is A Paulinist?

A Paulinist is one who (1) emphasizes teachings in Paul at odds with those of Jesus, and (2) exhorts us to treat Jesus' contrary words as part of a prior defunct dispensation or covenant.

The most famous example of this is Bultmann in 1929. This famous and influential theologian relied upon Paul in 2 Cor. 5:16 as instructing us that any teachings of Jesus before his resurrection are no longer important. Paul supposedly meant in 2 Cor. 5:16 that only the lessons Jesus imparted to Paul after Jesus's resurrection have any ongoing importance. Bultmann says Jesus's earthly teachings are therefore correctly "irrelevant," and Paul was the first to explain this to us. See this webpage for our discussion of Bultmann's influential claims. This has led to the popular dispensational and covenant theology claims of today. In these popular views, Jesus's words largely apply only to a defunct dispensation, i.e., the covenant of Law which supposedly died at the Cross. Only rarely and exceptionally did Jesus's teachings in the flesh allegedly have any bearing on the message that Jesus would reveal through Paul.

Examples of Supposedly Defunct Doctrines of Jesus

For example, Jesus emphasizes the continuity of the Law in Matt. 5:17-19 ("he who practices and teaches [the Law] shall be called the greatest in the KOG"). However, this is contradicted by Paul in numerous places, especially regarding its application to Jews in Romans 7:1 et seq. [JWO:78]. (See also our webpage discussion of Romans 7:1-6.)

Thus, many dismiss Matthew 5:17-19 on the ground it belongs to the dispensation of Law which was nullified by the dispensation of Grace which Paul brought.

Similarly, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes a "believer in me" who is "ensnared" has a necessity to repent and turn from sins -- "heaven maimed" or "hell whole" (as Jesus put it in Mark 9:42-47). However, based upon Paul, the necessity of repentance is now dismissed as a "works righteousness" of a defunct dispensation. Paul is viewed to have taught Abraham was justified soley by faith without repentance in Romans 4:3-6, and this principle of grace supposedly supplants Jesus's Law-based doctrine of salvation. [JWOS: 484.]

As a result, teachers like Charles Stanley say that once we are initially justified, we need no longer fear our subsequent sins will ever cause a loss of salvation, relying on Paul's verses interpreted to teach eternal security, e.g., Eph. 2:8-9.[JWOS:259.] Jesus's contrary doctrine of "hell whole" or "heaven maimed" (Mark 9:42-47) is left by them to a defunct dispensation where disobedience at one time mattered for salvation. In its place, Paulinists teach that sin by a Christian no longer matters because Paul supposedly teaches a new dispensation of 'grace' based on 'faith alone,' not works.

Paulinists thus are those who teach obedience and good deeds are no longer relevant to our salvation, fully cognizant that this doctrine is at complete odds with Jesus's words in Mark 9:42-47 and numerous passages catalogued in Jesus' Words on Salvation. They acknowledge the contradiction, and dismiss Jesus' contrary doctrine as solely applicable to a prior dispensation of Law. In fact, they claim the contradiction between Jesus and Paul proves there are two dispensations and Jesus's teachings in the Gospels therefore supposedly represent a defunct set of lessons.

Paulinism, as I thus narrowly define it, is called today by the name of Dispensationalism among evangelicals and as certain versions of Covenant Theology among Reformed congregations in the Calvinist tradition. It is highly influenced by Bultmann's thesis that Paul has the more valid revelation because supposedly Paul received it after Jesus' resurrection.

Personal Encounter With A Paulinist That Started My Quest For An Answer

To give a personal example, I first confronted Paulinism long before I questioned Paul.  I once quoted to an elder Jesus' verses insisting upon repentance from sin to enter heaven maimed or not at all in Mark 9:42-47. The elder at this Reformed church told me that "this principle belongs to a prior dispensation." I asked what does this mean? "Are we supposed to ignore Jesus?" The elder responded: "Paul teaches us we are under grace, not the Law. Abraham was justified without repentance, right? So in the NT dispensation, sin simply separates us from a happy relationship with God; it does not cause us to go to hell. Once in grace, always in grace."

This conversation was one of the key reasons why I wished to explore why the church ignores the words of Jesus despite our Lord saying His words would never die even though heaven and earth will pass away.

Paul Maybe Was Not A Paulinist!

Would Paul agree with my elder I quoted above that Jesus's words on salvation are supplanted legitimately by Paul dispensing a superior dispensation of Grace?

I imagine that if Paul himself could today see Jesus's words he would find some way to re-explain himself so as not to be interpreted to contradict Jesus.

First, Paul endorsed that Jesus's words have a priority over anyone else's words, and anyone who contradicts Jesus is a man full of pride. (See our webpage explaining Paul endorses JWO in I Tim. 6:3-4.)

Furthermore, I document in my book JWOS that Paul often talks like Jesus about salvation as contingent on repentance and obedience. (JWOS:469-81.) But, like Second Peter says, many "twist" Paul's "difficult to understand" words and make many fall from "their steadfastness in Christ." These false teachers relied upon such twistings to have Paul justify "not obeying the holy commandments." (See my discussion on Second Peter at this link.)

Thus, these ones twisting Paul's words to contradict Christ deliberately to encourage disobedience to Christ's teachings are those who sow a seed for the enemy of Christ: Satan. For unabashed examples, see JWOS: 209 and 212. (Be-aware, Second Peter admits the fault is partly Paul's as his words are "difficult to understand.")

I pray Paul was not deliberately contradicting Christ. No one should ever construe me as saying otherwise. I assume Paul's good faith. Even if Paul is the "Benjamite Wolf" prophesied in Genesis 49 (as I contend) does not mean Paul with evil intent tried to fulfill that prophecy. He simply could have taken the actions which fulfill that prophecy in a good faith (but mistaken) belief he was serving God.

Who then are the agents of the enemy of Christ? Paulinists as I have narrowly defined them until they repent, and make Jesus their Sole Teacher once again! (Matt. 23:8-11.) Paulinists are those who twist Paul's words to come out at odds with our Lord and Savior's words as a means of discouraging obedience to Jesus' teachings. They are the ones who are clearly in the wrong.

Paulinists can see the contradiction (and they admit it!), but in defiance of Jesus Christ, they choose an opposite message to follow. Paulinists adopt a specious dispensationalism to reconcile Paul and Jesus. But their doctrine is a house of cards, because it is dependent on viewing Paul as (a) 100% inspired and (b) on a superior plane to Jesus's words to the twelve. It is these two baseless assumptions which have led to the modern phenomenon of a significant portion of the evangelical and Reformed branches of the Protestant church deliberately marginalizing Jesus's teachings.

What Duty Do Those Who Guard Jesus's Words Over Paul's Words Have Toward Paulinists?

How do we handle those people sown by the evil one (Satan) vying for mastery in doctrine over Christ?

Jesus told us the answer in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. You leave them for judgment day to be separated out from the true church. The best commentary always taught this parable is a lesson by Jesus to tolerate heretics within the body of Christ. (Chrysostum, 300's; Castellio, Menno, Luther.)

Jesus only taught us to shun someone whose sin/offense affronts a member of the church and who refuses to repent after repeated efforts at reconciliation. See Matt. 18. Sin is not the same as heresy. You can distinguish sinners from non-sinners, and thus the tare-wheat principle does not apply to them. However, it is not always possible to identify someone as a non-Christian by a heresy. Hence, tares -- heretics -- that are so similar to wheat must be left alone

While Paulinists of today may want to expel those who follow Jesus as the Sole Teacher -- as they regard it as heretical to treat Paul's words as inferior to Christ's words, your duty is not to treat them likewise by expelling them from your company. Follow the Master who told you tolerance is the appropriate response.

Thus, in one-on-one conversation, I don't begin by trying to tell good Christians to dump Paul. No, I tell them what Jesus taught, and if they then start telling me Paul said this and that, I respond -- in stages -- with the following message:

'I stick with Jesus first and foremost. You have to prove to me Paul is an apostle and a prophet whose teachings legitimately can supercede those of Christ before I vary from Jesus's teachings. But if you admit Paul says the same thing as Christ, then we don't need Paul anyway to tell us the same thing, do we? Then the only reason for you to hold onto Paul is if you know he contradicts Christ. Then the reason you do so must be because you want to supplant our Lord with a different teacher with a different doctrine. I will never be tempted to reject my Lord's words by such a treacherous betrayal of our Master. Jesus prohibited this when He demanded that He is the sole teacher. Let's obey Christ and not be muddled in confusion by a different voice than Christ's voice on doctrine.'

When I thus challenge good Christians about what gives Paul any true authority, most have no idea what proves Paul is an apostle. (Nothing other than self-serving statements by Paul). Nor do they have any idea what proves him a prophet. (Absolutely nothing).

Often they make themselves look foolish -- even to themselves. One elder told me Paul was one of the 12 apostles until I reminded him Matthias, not Paul, replaced Judas in Acts 1. The elder had that 'deer in the headlights' look, he was so shocked.

So Paulinists end up stumped. If they love Paul more than Jesus, they end up frustrated as nothing from the Lord Jesus substantiates their beliefs! They are stunned to learn in none of the 3 vision accounts between Jesus and Paul does Jesus appoint Paul an apostle. He appoints him as a WITNESS not an APOSTLE. A "martus" not an "apostolus" in Greek. (See Acts chs. 9, 22 &  26.) When the Paulinist is confronted by such facts which they cannot answer, they end up muttering hateful invectives -- a form of persecution which our Lord told us to patiently and lovingly endure.

But be of good cheer, because if you have "kept guard of [Jesus'] words,' He promises those doing so "should have Eternal Life." (Jn 8:52.)

The Purpose of Jesus's Command in the Parable of the Wheat & The Tares

Why did Jesus give us this instruction to leave the tares alone in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares? Because He also told us to love our enemies. Any enemy of Christ deserves what? Our love. What about those sown by the enemy? They likewise are owed love, for the same reason.

Yet, if they prove to love Jesus Christ more than Paul, they are not a true enemy at all, but are brave brothers and sisters in Christ whom we would naturally love due to a family connection. More and more each day I find such Christians who are fellowshipping in Paulinist churches but whom when the Master Jesus calls them, they respond properly to preserve His status as Sole Teacher and Divine Lord. They refuse to dishonor Jesus by dismissing His words to a prior dispensation.

If, on the other hand, you encounter someone who excessively loves Paul to the point they are willing to dump Jesus's teachings on repentance, the Law and true faith into a prior defunct dispensation (e.g., certain followers of Covenant Theology / Dispensationalism), then they are sown by the enemy of Jesus Christ. But then our command from the Sole Teacher and Divine Lord says to love our enemies and do good to them who persecute us. And by obeying Jesus, you will become more like your Master. In the end, He surrendered His life in obedience as an act of love even to those who then hated Him. You too might one day have to surrender things you hold dear to help those who actually are the enemies of Christ yet who sincerely believe they are friends of Christ.

Thus, we must show love and patience to all Paulinists. We can only pray that they will do likewise toward us in obedience to Jesus if they view Sole Teacher-Christians as flawed. In this way, UNITY based on love will grow from within one corporate body of worshippers. Presumably Jesus also intended on our maintaining unity in worship despite disagreements because whoever is the true tare would learn from the true wheat what is True. So let's keep worshipping together -- Paulinist and Sole Teacher followers -- each with an open mind, prepared to hear whatever good and noble lessons each can share, and praying with and loving one another.

Blessings to all

Doug (July 14, 2010).

P.S. A Paulinist is trained differently by Paul than what Jesus teaches on how to treat heresy. A Paulinist is taught by Paul not to obey, in effect, the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. Jesus says to leave the Tare alone among the body of believers, and let them grow up together with the Wheat until judgment day. Don't try to exclude them. As mentioned above, the best commentary always taught this parable is a lesson to tolerate heretics and take no action against them. (Chrysostum, 300's; Castellio, Menno, Luther.)

But Paul teaches to exclude/shun those who come with different doctrines than Paul taught. (Titus 3:10,11 "shun a heretical person after 2 warnings"). Paul even curses them. (Gal. 1:8,9 "anyone who preaches another gospel than we preach, let him be eternally condemned.")

So you see, to engender the response in a Paulinist to be tolerant as Jesus commands toward what they believe is a Tare (i.e., Sole Teacher-Christians) is actually the first moral test of a Paulinist to obey Christ or Paul. So every confrontation on the issue of Jesus vs. Paul always tests the Paulinist whether he or she will obey Christ or Paul. Thus, in your encounter, if you show a true love for Christ (rather than a disgust with Paulinism), this will inspire obedience to Christ and His command in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. So emphasize your love for Christ, and you will inspire your listener to do likewise. Gradually, the love of Christ will melt away the Paulinist's acceptance of the incongruous teachings of Paul at odds with our Sole Teacher and Divine Lord. This is how Christ's church will grow even if it is Paulinist -- by spreading the LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST and the WORDS HE TAUGHT. That cannot be a dangerous message in any church, can it? If it were, God help us!