Tags
Augustine, Christianity, Grace and works, Luther, pharisees, Religion and Spirituality, Talking With God, Wesley, Westminster Shorter Catechism
by Norman Walford 4th January 2014
28 years ago last month, I resigned my job in a respectable London hospital and headed for the ski slopes of Switzerland. I remember dire warnings from my boss that I would never get another job again, but I wasn’t too worried. When you’ve got God on your side, you can take risks that others can’t. I knew He would look after me, and so it proved. It broke a bondage in my life, and looking back it was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.
Now 28 years later I’m doing something similar, again back on the ski slopes of Switzerland but this time mainly to write not to ski. Life is very short, and the older you get the shorter it looks. Like the saying goes, “No one ever lay on their deathbed and said I wish I’d spent more time working.” I get a bit of correspondence back from what I write, and some of it shocks me. Yesterday I replied to someone who told me the way to get close to God is to read the bible for a minimum of four hours a day, and believe me they get much worse than that! One thing I’ve finally learned is that we don’t get to God by trying harder, and in fact trying harder is often the surest road to becoming the ultimate Pharisee. So I’ve come here to the mountains to reflect on the truth of the gospel, to learn, and to pass on what I learn to others as my own antidote to some of the more weird ideas about Christianity that come through to me.
I mentioned last time that before I came away I started attending a second church in Singapore. In addition to my old ‘try harder’ church of St Gregory’s (not its real name by the way) I now attend the New Creation megachurch pastored by Joseph Prince. The theology of New Creation is pretty simple and uncomplicated. Basically it’s grace, grace, and more grace. The free gift of God permeating every area of life. Nothing to be earned, no way to impress God with our holiness. Just accept what God has done for us and offered us for free, and enjoy it. I think I like this message!
But when you listen to this message, with its extreme simplicity, you inevitably find yourself asking the question “Is it REALLY that simple? Is that IT?” So to check myself on that I’ve taken some time to look again at some of the ‘great’ Christian thinkers and preachers of history to see if I’m missing anything. I’ve taken some time to look (fairly superficially) at these three: Martin Luther (1500’s), Augustine (400’s), and John Wesley (1700’s), and try and benchmark them against the story of the early church in Acts of the Apostles. My purpose in this is to run a reality check on questions like: What, actually, is the gospel? Have I got it right? Questions that we all need to ask ourselves constantly, all the way through life. It’s so easy to drift off course.
The first interesting thing that struck me about Luther, Augustine, and Wesley was the extreme similarity (in some ways) of their conversions. For all of them there was an extended period of years of often agonizing search for spiritual truth culminating in a sudden and blinding flash of insight resulting in a totally changed life. It seems there’s nothing particularly new about ‘born again’ experiences! (Luther actually used those words, born again to describe what happened to him that day.) In each case it can be pinned down to a particular day and a particular moment almost. Augustine was in his garden reading Romans. Luther was sitting in his study in the Wittenberg monastery also thinking about Romans. And Wesley was at a meeting in Aldersgate Street, London, listening to a reading of Luther’s Preface to the Epistle to the Romans. Clearly Romans has a bit to answer for!
Looking at these three men in a little more detail, let’s start with Luther. After years of unremitting failed efforts to live up to God’s imagined demands, he finally saw the light in Romans 1.17 “The righteous shall live by faith.” From then on and for the rest of his life he was totally uncompromising in his understanding of the gospel. The gospel, the good news, is purely and simply about what Christ has done in his death and resurrection. We contribute nothing at all, Luther tells us, except by choosing to believe. It’s all grace and more grace—justification by grace, through faith, as a free gift. Don’t even think about your faith, he said. Don’t even ask the question, Do I believe? Just think about what Christ has done—that’s all that matters. I love that.
Later on Luther may have got into some weird stuff. When his early battles with the Pope were replaced by later battles with fellow reformers of different opinions, he seems to have found a new legalism. A bit of the Pharisee even. This comes out particularly in his destructive fights over minutiae of doctrine such as the Eucharist as well as his strong and intolerant commitment to the institutional church. But his lifelong commitment to the principle of salvation as a free gift of grace remained unchanged to the end.
I think a lot of the later negatives in Luther’s attitudes stem back to the ideas of Augustine, the Christian philosopher who had lived more than a thousand years before, but whose ideas still dominated church thinking in Luther’s time. Augustine, I’m afraid, is a man who commands little sympathy from me. The British evangelical writer David Pawson once described him as having done more damage to the Christian church than any other man who has ever lived (I hope I’ve recollected this correctly), and I think he may have a point. The story of his conversion, as laid out in his autobiographical Confessions of St Augustine is brilliant and dramatic, and should be required reading for every Christian. But anyone who sees a vow of celibacy as being an essential part of his own personal conversion process, and as a part of that process abandons his common law wife of 15 years’ duration (and the mother of his son), seems to me to be starting off his Christian life on the wrong track.
My Sources Nowadays I prefer listening to reading—I find I take in more that way. I started by listening to a series of 24 lectures on Martin Luther—Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation by Professor Phillip Cary, available on audible.com or audible.co.uk. After hearing ‘You have to understand Augustine to understand Luther’ twenty times over, I moved on to 12 lectures on Augustine: Philosopher and Saint also by Phillip Cary from the same source. Now I’m hearing ‘You have to understand Plato to understand Augustine!’ It never ends. For John Wesley, The Holy Spirit and Power is a series of original Wesley sermons excellently performed by Charlie Glaize with a voice that really seems to capture Wesley’s power and spirit (also on Audible)—strongly recommended! |
Part of Augustine’s problem is that he is basically a philosopher rather than a theologian. He is not so much interested in understanding the Bible, but more in taking Plato’s ideas about the essential nature of reality, and fitting them together with Christianity into an integrated framework. I hesitate to say it of a man whose ideas formed the central basis of Western Christianity for 1000 years (and probably in Roman Catholicism still do) but I don’t think his ideas have much to contribute. In fairness, he had no way of knowing at the time the full extent of the damage they would do in future generations. Nonetheless they more of a blueprint for everything that went wrong with Christianity in the mediaeval period than anything else. (I have to admit here to negative bias related to the experiences of my own early years of Roman Catholic upbringing.) Augustine’s conversion is the most interesting thing about his life, but it seems at odds with much of what followed, and with that I leave him.
Then we come to Wesley, who lived 200 years after Luther. I find this man altogether more encouraging—and interesting. Who could not be interested by a man who could be baptized, ordained, and active as an overseas missionary, and active in bringing others into saving grace, and at the end of it all admit that he wasn’t even a Christian himself? Wesley is uncompromising. You believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, and you know about it! Without that you’re just not a Christian. Extremely simple.
I think Augustine would have questioned Wesley’s self-diagnosis (of not having been a Christian), and would have argued that he actually was a Christian all along. But personally I find Wesley’s self-assessment more convincing.
Why?
Simply because, when I look at the final source, the Book of Acts, I see a gospel far more in line with Luther and Wesley than with Augustine. In Acts, Christian conversion is presented as simple, dramatic, usually instantaneous, and life-changing. An existential encounter with the Holy Spirit. But above all EASY. I see nothing of Augustine in Acts. Luther had a fantastic insight in resurrecting Paul’s concept of justification by grace through faith alone which had been almost lost since early church times. That was the doctrine changed the world. Wesley took it up in even more uncompromising form with equally dramatic effect. All I know, he says in his diary, is that when I preach the gospel of grace, things happen, and when I preach anything else, they don’t.
So … is it that easy? Is it really all about grace, grace, and more grace? Augustine wouldn’t have said so (not in the sense that Paul speaks of). But for Luther it was, though he piled a bit of baggage on top later on. And certainly it was for Wesley. That’s what you see in the Book of Acts also.
And that’s how it is for me from now on.
Wow, glad to hear you are following Joseph Prince, and the “Finished Works” message. I spent a few years reading his morning devotional which is excellent. Wrote a lot of songs off of the inspiration of those daily pieces. You might want to look into ANDREW WOMACK,or / and ELWIN ROACH OF PATHFINDERS SITE (where my music is …Josiah’s Trumpet Band…on his link page). Grace is the ONLY message, actually. If you want to read and listen to an ultimate grace teacher ( although a rebel by his own admission), go to site of MARTIN ZENDER . He is a genius in his own right, and really sticks to pure grace. The thing about a grace message though, is that sooner or later you must deal with “ultimate reconciliation.” I could go on about that, but I will leave the investigation to you, except that ” if it is GRACE, then it must be TOTAL grace, or…it is not really grace.” I don’t believe that there can be any fence sitting in the subject of grace. Grace is all God, and no man OR FREE WILL, otherwise again, it is not grace, as grace has no involvement from man’s side. ( When speaking of His gift to us. Of course, we can dispense grace to others as He does to us. But, one can do ANYTHING to get or receive grace. It is a gift.
Blessings, Jim Rapalje / Benson, NC
I have not given much thought to the philosophical aspects of free will Jim. I think that with a God who exists outside time, and for whom all things past present and future are therefore in a sense eternally present, our strict human logic of either/or probably breaks down.
I still believe that you, I, and everyone else, can individually make a difference.
The last line was supposed to be ” one cannot do anything .”( to receive grace).
My friend and fellow practitioner, I don’t want to stir up a hornet’s nest, but I assure you that , (especially while you are ” in the desert ” {skiing and contemplating } ) that
God will bring you to a place of consideration of the difference between sovereignty and man’s free will. This is especially hard to even contemplate for a man such as yourself, that is obviously more intelligent than most ( a pure gift of grace ! ) and if you have not considered such, I warn you of the roller coaster ride that you will embark upon, in studying and choosing the validity of one or the other. Many folks choose to
” ride the fence ” but God is not one who desires a man to vacillate between two opinions, as we know from His words to the church of Laodicea in Rev 3:14.
For a man to believe in sovereignty, he must be willing to offer up all remnants of rebellion within his heart, ( which is Romans 12:1 ) and admit that God is God , and I am not. For that really is what ” free will ” is. And then, peace enters in as God’s sovereignty is the ” pearl of great price ” in which ALL else must be sold to purchase this treasure. I thank God that He is totally in charge,…. and not me !
I think we may be at cross purposes as to the meaning of ‘free will’. For me free will is all about what happens when my alarm clock goes off in the morning. There is a moral choice: do I get up or do I stay in bed. I can choose right and get up, or i can choose wrong and stay in bed. In that sense I clearly have free will. If you’re talking about surrender, then I can agree with you.
There are some that do believe that every hair that you lose from your head is related to sovereignty. Seems extreme to me. I guess you could say that God is ALL …..concerning all things . Which is why He is God. But I believe the dividing line in this subject is a matter of ” inherency.
The best way for me to explain that is relating it to healing. While the charismatic / Pentecostal church runs around laying hands on everyone and even their dogs, seeking healing manifestation, they need to consider that a loving God has placed INHERENT HEALING in every child of God. No healing gift is in effect in this present eon, since the first century. Don’t tell a charismatic that, for they will assault you, at least verbally, claiming your lack of faith. The problem is their lack of sense and reality. The same ones that are supposedly ” slain in the Spirit” when some idiot TV evangelist slaps them in the forehead.
Simply, brushing our teeth doesn’t have to be validated by God. Seek God and be healed. It is there in the Finished Work of Christ where He secured healing for all. It is inherent ….by His love. God has given each one a brain, and it doesn’t take sovereignty to get up each day. But, God still got you up, as He is the air you breathe. Everything comes from God ! Does He bother Himself with hair loss?…….Doubtful.
Thanks Jim. Keeping it all simple, grace may mean many things to many people. For me GRACE is Gift Received At Christ’s Expense. Slightly simplistic but what I was taught 40 years ago and I’m still comfortable with – as good as any other definition.
Norman
Luke wrote the Book of Acts. (Paul did not write it.) Acts is not a Gospel, centered on the perfect actions and words of Jesus. But Acts is a narrative, like other narratives in the Bible, revealing the sinful actions and false words of the imperfect people in its pages, like David’s adultery and murder, Peter denying 3 times he knew Jesus, and Paul… by the way, what about Paul?
Parable of the Wacky New Religion
“SNAKE WORSHIPPER” and “PAULIST” make plans to start their own wacky new religion, “based on the Bible”.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: I think people make too big a deal about Jesus. Who do they think he is- God? Do they think Jesus is the only way to be saved? The Bible says, “So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. ”[Numbers 21:9] People are saved by looking at a snake. What do we need Jesus for? We should just keep it simple.
PAULIST: Right on! Who needs a “Jesus Movement?” I say what we really need is a “Paul Movement!” But as to your comment, I think Christians would say that the salvation referred to there was only temporary salvation from snake poison, for the Israelites at a particular time. And it pointed to the future, to Jesus dying on the cross to save us from our sins.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Don’t confuse the issue with facts! That verse is my favorite verse in Scripture. It says it right there in black and white. So my personal interpretation of this one verse is the trump card that negates all other verses of Scripture about salvation. Are you questioning the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures?
PAULIST: Of course, you must be right! If you quote one verse out of context, insist that it means something that contradicts other verses of Scripture, and then accuse me of questioning the inerrancy of Scripture if I disagree with your personal interpretation, than you must be correct. How foolish of me. Please continue.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: So that’s it. Just look to the serpent and be saved. Never mind about Jesus.
PAULIST: But the Bible tells us: “He (King Hezekiah) broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.” [2 Kings 18:4] So Christians would say that this snake had become an idol, which the godly King Hezekiah destroyed.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Bah! Hezekiah was like Judas, who betrayed the true salvation! We snake worshippers know better. We must restore true worship.
PAULIST: OK. If that is your personal interpretation of one verse of Scripture, then you must be correct. But my favorite verses of Scripture are from Paul writing to the church in Corinth: “In Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.” [1 Corinthians 4:15-16]
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But Christians would remind us what the Bible says: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach… They love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi’. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father”, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’, for you have one Teacher, the Christ (or Messiah).’” [Matthew 23:1-3, 7-10]
PAULIST: Don’t confuse the issue with facts! Those 2 verses from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians are my favorite verses in Scripture. It says it right there in black and white. So my personal interpretation of these two verses is the trump card that negates all other verses of Scripture. Are you questioning the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures?
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Of course, you must be right! If you quote two verses out of context, insist that they mean something that contradicts many other verses of Scripture, and then accuse me of questioning the inerrancy of Scripture if I disagree with your personal interpretation, than you must be correct. How foolish of me. Please continue.
PAULIST: So that’s it. Paul is our father, and we should “be like Paul”. Paul also testified about himself without any other witnesses: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” [1 Corinthians 11:1] So that has to mean that to “be like Paul” is the same thing as to “be like Christ”, and Paul lived a perfect life as a Christian, everything Paul did was 100% correct and everyone around him was wrong, and Paul is our perfect model for life and ministry. Unless all men speak well of Paul and everything Paul ever did, said, or wrote about himself, they are heretics who are denying the inerrancy of Scripture. What other possible interpretation could there be?
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Yes of course! That is the only possible choice. Well since we’re starting our own wacky new religion, we need some of the trappings of religion. How about a slogan and a rallying cry?
PAULIST: I’ve got it! “There is no god but the serpent, and Paul is his prophet”! Our rallying cry can be “Paul is great!”
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: That has a familiar ring to it somehow…
PAULIST: We’ll make people take a religious pilgrimage once in their lives- we’ll call the pilgrimage the “Journey of Paul”. It will go from Galatia (present day Turkey) to Antioch (present day Syria) and to Jerusalem, so we can “be like Paul” and do the things Paul did.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Tell me more.
PAULIST: In Galatia, the pilgrims will go and circumcise some young men, [Acts 16:3] and then yell at them “You foolish Galatians” [Galatians 3:1] because they got circumcised.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But in the Bible, Paul taught passionately, over and over, that Christians should never be circumcised under any circumstances, and Jesus said “Anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” [Matthew 5:22]
PAULIST: What are you, a liberal? Only liberals criticize Paul. Conservatives have an instant, airtight justification for everything Paul ever did or said. If you criticize Paul that means you’re a liberal who is attacking Jesus.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Of course- carry on.
PAULIST: At Antioch, the pilgrims must have a sharp disagreement and part company with whomever they are with. [Acts 15:39] If they are married, they must get divorced. If they have children, they must disown them. If they are with friends, they must separate.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But in the Bible, Paul wrote to Timothy “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing.” [1 Timothy 2:8]
PAULIST: Paul meant for that to apply to everyone else except him. Paul is an exception. Paul is always the exception to the rule. If Paul disputed, he must have been right. Remember in the inerrant Scripture, Paul testified about himself “follow my example”.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Yes of course.
PAULIST: Luke records Paul as saying “compelled the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem.” [Acts 20:22] So since Paul said this about himself, that has to mean it was true, and we should “be like Paul.”
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But Luke, who was personally traveling with Paul to Jerusalem at that time, also wrote “Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” [Acts 21:4]
PAULIST: What are you, a left-wing liberal heretic who is attacking Jesus and the Bible?
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: OK. Lets just keep true to our foundations as a religion. Just look to the serpent and be saved. Paul is our father, and we should “be like Paul”.
Hopefully NOT to be continued….
I think your story illustrates a basic problem, that if you remove Paul and the other letters from the Bible, then take someone who knows nothing, and stick them on a desert island with just the Old Testament and the Gospels, they will come out with a very warped and distorted conception of Christianity.
I’m not sure what your own belief system is, or where you got it from. But I suspect that it does indeed owe a lot to Paul.
Norman,
This particular parable is about how to interpret Acts, a narrative written by Luke. Most Evangelicals unconsciously interpret Acts almost like a 5th Gospel, with Paul taking the place of Jesus as the hero who is always right in everything he says and does, all the time, 100%. But in truth, Acts is a story with sinful men as the characters, not a Gospel about Jesus.
Can you name a few specific things that Paul said and did, recorded by Luke in Acts, that are clearly wrong? Specific.
I have no particular problem in disagreeing with Paul about specific points. He was a very emotional, perhaps even impulsive, man, who often overstates his case. Perhaps you would have done better to leave them a few days and review before sending.
Nonetheless I am happy to go along with him on general principles, if only because I find nothing else to put in their place.
Norman,
Lets move from theory to specific points. Can you disagree with Paul on any of these 5 points, or say that Paul was wrong, sinned, was a hypocrite, disobeyed God, etc.?
.1) Paul wrote about himself: ““In Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.” [1 Corinthians 4:15-16]
.2) In Galatia, Paul circumcised Timothy to please some local Jews, [Acts 16:3] while teaching passionately that Christians should never be circumcised under any circumstances. Then later Paul lashed out writing “You foolish Galatians” [Galatians 3:1] because some of them got circumcised.
.3) At Antioch, Paul had a sharp disagreement with his mentor Barnabas. [Acts 15:39] But Paul wrote to Timothy “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing.” [1 Timothy 2:8]
.4) Luke records Paul as saying “compelled the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem.” [Acts 20:22] But Luke, who was personally traveling with Paul to Jerusalem at that time, also wrote “Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” [Acts 21:4]
.5) Paul wrote:
“The entire law is summed up in a SINGLE command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” [Galatians 5:14, Leviticus 19:18]
But,
According to Jesus, which is the most important commandment?
This can be an “open Book” test, and here is the page: Mark 12:28-34
(Jesus did not say “Love” or “Love your neighbor as yourself.”)
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: …”…
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” [Mark 12:28-34, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
I put the testimony of Jesus in the center of everything (in place of where the Evangelical church has unconsciously placed Paul.)
I find Paul a very imperfect human being, which is why I like him.
I find the decision to circumcise Timothy a bit odd. The decision to go to Jerusalem is likewise hard to explain – he seems to have been a somewhat obstinate character. As for Barnabas, I guess he just thought that Barnabas was wrong!
The other two I have no real problem with. I’m sure if Paul were here with us now and able to converse, he would confirm the extreme importance of loving God.
I think he’s just speaking off the cuff.
Norman,
You wrote above: “I have no particular problem in disagreeing with Paul about specific points.” I just listed 5 specific points, and you are not really “disagreeing” with Paul on any of them. (Odd, hard to explain, Paul thought the other guy was wrong, if Paul were here he would explain, just speaking off the cuff…)
Can you give a few specific points where you disagree with Paul, beyond the verses below?
The Evangelical “Mexican Hat Dance”
Sin is always specific, not general.
The “Hat” is, “What were Paul’s sins?”
The music starts, with a cheery blast of trumpets in a melody that is familiar to most North Americans- the “Mexican Hat Dance.” (The national dance of Mexico, taught in Mexican public schools since 1921, and officially named “El Jarabe Tapatio.”)
A couple in rather elaborate traditional costumes begins the dance. The man throws his huge sombrero hat on the floor, and the couple dances around it, but never steps on the hat. (The “Hat” is, “what were Paul’s sins?”) Here are the basic steps- (there may be one or two other basic steps, but they are very similar to these.)
What were Paul’s sins?
STEP 1) Paul said; “I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man.” [1 Timothy 1:13]
(Response- Those were Saul’s sins, before Jesus called him. What were Paul’s sins as a Christian? )
STEP 2) Paul said; “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.” [1 Timothy 1:15]
(Response- Sin is alwasy specific. What were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian? )
STEP 3) Paul said; “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” [Romans 3:23]
(Response- Again the same question; What were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian? )
STEP 4) Paul said; “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it.” [Philippians 3:12-13]
(Response- They say third time’s a charm. Same question; What were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian? )
STEP 5) Paul said; “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do- this I keep on doing.” [Romans 7:15-19]
(Response- One more time! This is getting boring. Same question; Specifically, what were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian based on specific verses of the Bible? )
STEP 6) LOOP- REPEAT steps 1 through 5, until your dance partner gives up, the audience gets bored, or the music stops. The rule is- never step on the “Hat,” just keep dancing around it.
I think for most of these points (Timothy, Jerusalem, etc) there’s just insufficient information available to us to make a reasoned judgement. Perhaps he had reasons for doing these things that we haven’t been told. Or perhaps he didn’t. Impossible to know.
I disagree with him on various points, like length of hair, women talking in church, covering of heads, segregation of sexes for worship etc. Minor stuff.
To his specific sins, I don’t know. He hasn’t told us. I wouldn’t expect him to tell us.
So in the narrative of Acts, written by Luke (not Paul), you can’t point to a single thing that Paul said or did that was clearly wrong?
I can’t think of anything offhand that was clearly wrong.
How would you approach the narrative about Paul in Acts differently than the narratives about Jesus in the Gospels?
I don’t think I approach them any differently. They are both narratives, they both seem substantially reliable. As a Gentile believer, I find the book of Acts which is a book about Gentile believers, obviously of great interest.
The quest for the real historical Jesus is a far more complex and enigmatic one that leaves many unanswered questions; the quest for the real historical Paul is a simpler one.
But Jesus is God, and Paul is not.
Farewell.
I’m glad we agree on that. That’s the main thing.