St. Paul is not a contingent being, he is not necessary either for the Redemption or the existence of the created world. He didn't need to exist. It's almost as if Calvinistas are doing to St. Paul what they accuse Catholics of doing to Mary... How's that shoe feel when it's on the other foot?
FURTHERMORE, you will notice (and if you don't, everyone else certainly will) that I wrote "In that sense"... What sense would that be Leggo? I'm glad you asked that question: "he [St. Paul] doesn't make sense without direct reference to what Jesus Christ said and did". In THAT sense Christ explains St. Paul, in THAT sense what St. Paul wrote makes uh... sense.
We're back to this again: I write something, someone (and apparently it would be wrong of me to say who that someone is) sees what I wrote, picks a part of it out of context and goes berserk. If that someone does it to what I write why should anyone be surprise when that same someone does it to Sacred Scripture?
St. Paul makes a statement and we must refer to what Christ said or did that St. Paul is expounding on to get the proper sense of what St. Paul means. We must understand everything through the lens of Christ.
is this you? are you referring to yourself in the 3rd person now? because silverlings is curious
What did Christ say and do?
In light of what he said and did, why do you, and Leggo presumably, (is there any more of you?)choose to live under Law?
What a profoundly sad misunderstanding of the Gospel.
Christ redeemed men. But without the preaching of that fact, how would men know their salvation?
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." -- 2 Corinthians 5:9-11 "Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
Apparently, Paul was not "made manifest in your conscience."
Pray for it. How can you understand the Gospel if you don't believe Paul was sent by God to deliver the Good News?
St. Paul makes a statement and we must refer to what Christ said or did
Certainly. And anyone who's actually read the Bible would see Paul does not contradict Christ, but proclaims Christ, as God ordained him to do.
Good grief. RCs get themselves out on a limb and feverishly begin chopping it off. Do they presume Rome is waiting on the ground with congratulations?
Study to show thyself approved.
Or don't, and continue to write foolishness like "Paul didn't need to exist."
But we should realize this is exactly how and why Rome denigrates the word of God. "It isn't necessary."
>> picks a part of it out of context and goes berserk.
“trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
Matthew 7:6 is the mascot verse of this thread.
Of course Paul is intrinsically unnecessary for our redemption or the created world, you silly wabbit! God could have used "Irving" to make known the truths of the gospel to his embryonic church. He chose Saul (Paul) and therefore the words he spoke are recorded in the Bible and accepted as the revealed words of God - as God willed. By the same token, God could have chosen a young virgin named Hannah instead of Mary to bear the Savior.
I totally agree that without Jesus Christ, Paul's words would mean nothing, but the entire Bible is about him so he is, of course, its center. Without him, not one word would make sense.