Sounds like a round-about way of saying that +Paul wasn't always preaching the Gospel, without actually saying it.
FK I would disagree that Romans 8:29 is a lone wolf verse...Eph 1:3-5 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ"
Sounds great! But Genesis tells that's not how it happened. God created us out of dirt (inorganic stuff, as Alex correctly put it in another post). Adam and Eve were not "adopted" through [sic] Jesus Christ.
Just as we did not choose to be physically born, so also do we not choose to be born again
Being born spiritually is a figure of speech. It is a metaphor for belief. The way it is used is a play on words. A misleading play at that. We come to a belief when we realize that something greater than we can imagine created all this.
Jer 1:5 : 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." This is also classic predestination...
He wrote that in retrospect. Anyone can say the same thing: "God predestined me to do this..." in retrospect. What is always lacking is prospective knowledge of this kind.
Fact is, the Church does not teach Paul as the Protestants interpret him because the Church concentrates on other apostolic teachings and find a common denominator or the most prevalent denominator as the orthodox teaching. The protestants simply take Paul as the standard and fit or reject the rest.
The Church certainly does not teach Pauline predestination as the Protestants do, and neither does it teach Pauline doctrine of atonement as they do.
For obvious reasons, the Church will never say that any one of the Apostles was wrong. But at the same time, the Church will not build its theology based on one of them, even an essential one (who also happens to be a controversial self-appointed later-comer whose teachings were not always in synch with the rest).
Of course; but the error is with the Protestant interpretation of St. Paul, not with what St. Paul wrote.
Sounds great! But Genesis tells that's not how it happened. God created us out of dirt (inorganic stuff, as Alex correctly put it in another post). Adam and Eve were not "adopted" through [sic] Jesus Christ.
Why were Adam and Eve not adopted through Jesus Christ like everyone else who is saved? After they sinned, they needed saving. Adam was created out of dirt, Eve was created out of bone, and we were created out of flesh. All of us need saving just the same. He knew all of us before we were created physically.
Being born spiritually is a figure of speech. It is a metaphor for belief. The way it is used is a play on words. A misleading play at that. We come to a belief when we realize that something greater than we can imagine created all this.
While it does mean belief, it is no figure of speech. It refers to a very literal thing. Upon being born again, there is an emergence of a completely new being, not existent before (2 Cor. 5:17). I don't understand why you think it is a play on words.
FK: Jer 1:4-5 : 4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." This is also classic predestination...
He wrote that in retrospect. Anyone can say the same thing: "God predestined me to do this..." in retrospect. What is always lacking is prospective knowledge of this kind.
What??? He was DIRECTLY quoting God, AND it's in the Bible. It almost sounds like you are asserting the possibility that God never said this. ...... What do you mean by "prospective knowledge of this kind"? You know of prophecy proven true in future times. Do you mean someone prophesying the future words spoken by God? If you do, then see every OT quote made by Christ.
Fact is, the Church does not teach Paul as the Protestants interpret him because the Church concentrates on other apostolic teachings and find a common denominator or the most prevalent denominator as the orthodox teaching. The protestants simply take Paul as the standard and fit or reject the rest.
But that doesn't make logical sense. I am often reminded that I should be thanking the Church for giving me the Bible. Yet, the Church made Paul "THE STAR" of the entire NT in terms of ink. Why would the Church do that, if their intent was just to send Paul to the corner in favor of other teachings?
For obvious reasons, the Church will never say that any one of the Apostles was wrong. But at the same time, the Church will not build its theology based on one of them, even an essential one (who also happens to be a controversial self-appointed later-comer whose teachings were not always in synch with the rest).
I'm not aware of anyone who builds his theology based on only Paul. We base ours on the whole of the Bible. Since Paul's writings consume a disproportionately large amount of the NT, many of our teachings come THROUGH Paul, as opposed to "from" Paul. It can be a subtle difference, but our belief is not hinged on whether Paul "understood" correctly, or anything like that. We KNOW that everything that Paul wrote was God-inspired, and therefore perfect. It is the same with every other Biblical author. IOW, we don't judge the "correctness" of a scripture quote based on any theological "favorites". ALL scripture is equally God- inspired.
Do you really think that Paul was self-appointed? To me, that would make him a fraud.