Look up Gal. 1:17! :)
+Paul preached "his gospel," as he says, in Arabia. Where does it say he spent those years in 'solitude and prayer?'
It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite
He was. I don't agree with his alleged solafdeism atonement theology (and I would say the Church doesn't either), but as far as his mission for the Church is concerned, thank God for +Paul!
What would you say to the crazy idea that Paul was specifically CALLED by God to preach to the Gentiles?
That's what he says (Gal 1:16) and I would say that's what God did.
If Paul was the only one with enough slick to sell to the Gentiles, then what does that say about the other Apostles? They weren't good enough?
They didn't have the vision, style and the resoluteness +Paul had. +Paul realized that in order for the Church to be accepted by the Gentiles, some aspects of Judaism will have to be dispensed with (even though they are protected by God's Laws).
As TRD said, those things were decided at a council. Paul didn't simply declare them.
That's what the Acts say. Concordance was badly needed, and nothing short of a scriptural text could justify running contrary to God's promise that the New Covenant was intended only for the House of Israel and the House of Judah ([er 31:31]. The idea that God somehow wanted all this to be shared by the Gentiles is +Pauline in origin (and please don't quote Mat 28, because "all nations" there means all 12 tribes of Israel, not all nations of the world, as Christ even so mentioned abolishing circumcision, or dietary laws).
This is a truly amazing statement because if the Church really did not want Paul, then by definition, the Church was WRONG and was directly against God. The scriptures are 100% clear that God chose Paul. God wanted Paul. So much for the infallibility of the Church. Further, if the original Church was wrong, then so must the consensus patrum also be subject to error
First the Apostles didn't even know +Paul until he came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion. Second, his suggestion to drop circumcision and dietary restrictions was not immediately accepted. The fact that the Apostles are said to have been inspired and holy men would make any disagreement, even initial one, an impossibility. yet, clearly there was a difference of opinions.
Concensus patrum does not teach Pauline atonement doctrine, nor sola fide. The Creed does not contain atonement doctrine either.
+Pauline role and accomplishment in saving the Church is one thing; his theology and doctrine is another. I don't think the Church would ever admit it, but the role of +Paul in the liturgical life is very clearly distinct from that of the Apostles who wrote the Gospels. The homily is always based on the Gospel and not on the Epistle. These are very subtle facts that say a lot.
I'm talking about your personal belief here, not that of the Orthodox Church
I have my opinions, FK, like all of us, but I always defer to the Church. Such musisngs only reveal subtle details that are otherwise not clearly noticed.
And indeed those who refuse to defer to the church (namely protestants) typically refuse to defer to God instead defering to themselves, and their selfish pride in their 'knowledge' of 'scriptures'.
Verse 17 just says he went to Arabia, it doesn't say what he did there. It's not a slam dunk either way. Paul was a zealous Jew, who was ahead of his years in learning. As Gamecock said in another post, that meant he had A LOT to unlearn once Christianity was revealed to him. Prayer and meditation would be the way to do that. In addition, we don't appear to hear anything else of his time there. If he was preaching, then that seems odd to me since we are given so many other examples of Paul following up lovingly or referring to his other visits during his travels. Again, I'm not declaring absolute fact. It just seems more likely to me that he didn't really start his ministry in earnest until after he returned.
As to "his gospel", Paul says in verse 11 that the gospel he preached is not of man. That would include himself. In addition, Paul said:
2 Cor 11:4 : 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
This combined with what I "think" you meant by "his gospel" really puts Paul in quite of a box, doesn't it? As Paul is scolding here, if he really was preaching a different Jesus then are we not required to throw out most of the NT?
FK: "It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite."
He was. I don't agree with his alleged solafideism atonement theology (and I would say the Church doesn't either), but as far as his mission for the Church is concerned, thank God for +Paul!
I don't think there is anything alleged about Paul and solafideism. It really is all there, and you appear to acknowledge at least the possibility that it is. Since I would think it would be untenable for the Church to say "We disagree with Paul", then it seems to me that the only option left open to the Church is to say that Paul never said what he said. :)
[The other Apostles] didn't have the vision, style and the resoluteness +Paul had. +Paul realized that in order for the Church to be accepted by the Gentiles, some aspects of Judaism will have to be dispensed with (even though they are protected by God's Laws).
Are you saying that Paul made an executive marketing decision to unilaterally sweep some things under the rug, even though in his extensive education he knew "they were protected by God's Laws"? Was it proper for Paul to do this in your view? What exactly is your assessment of the Jerusalem Council?
The idea that God somehow wanted [the New Covenant] to be shared by the Gentiles is +Pauline in origin (and please don't quote Mat 28, because "all nations" there means all 12 tribes of Israel, not all nations of the world, as Christ even so mentioned abolishing circumcision, or dietary laws).
Well, if you believe that Christ was only speaking to the Apostles at the end of Matt. 28, then I suppose it makes sense that you think "all nations" only meant the 12 Tribes. Do you think Jesus never spoke of saving Gentiles? How do you interpret this:
John 10:15-16 : 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Or how about the centurion (Matt. 8:5-10)? How could Paul have invented this if Jesus talked about it before Paul even knew who Jesus was?
Concensus patrum does not teach Pauline atonement doctrine, nor sola fide. The Creed does not contain atonement doctrine either.
To my knowledge, this is exactly correct.
+Pauline role and accomplishment in saving the Church is one thing; his theology and doctrine is another. I don't think the Church would ever admit it, but the role of +Paul in the liturgical life is very clearly distinct from that of the Apostles who wrote the Gospels. The homily is always based on the Gospel and not on the Epistle. These are very subtle facts that say a lot.
Well, I can understand why the Gospels would be STRONGLY emphasized in any Christian faith. But, I don't really take this as any slight to Paul. If I could only take 4 books of the Bible to a desert island, one of them would be Romans. It might well be that not all Reformers would agree with me, but I think a whole bunch of them would. Do you think the vast majority of Orthodox would disagree with me?