Paul's attitude toward "another gospel"?

[Guest]

In 2 Cor 11:4 and Gal 1:6-8 Paul shares some strong feelings regarding anyone who would try to preach another Gospel or Jesus either of the same sort or of a different sort, it would seem according to the Greek. But then I turn over to Phil 1:15-18 and although it appears Paul is faced with similar issues, instead of condemning it, he seems to rejoice in it? Does anybody have any insight that they could share to help me understand how to harmonize these different accounts?

Thanks,
Erich <><

[Guest]

In galatians, Paul is upset about people teaching (in essence) that in order to be a christian, you also had to be a good Jew.

In phillipians, paul is apparently noting that some people are teaching the CORRECT gospel, but perhaps with impure motives. he doesnt care if the motives are right, as long as the listeners are getting the true gospel. at least that is my take on it.

TK

[Guest]

Thanks TK for the reply. That too is how I generally was looking at the two passages. What do you think about the passage in 2 Cor 11:4 ?
I guess were a lot of this is coming from is how do we react to those who don’t hold to non orthodox Christian views like J.W’s, Mormons, or even Catholics? Of course some have bigger issues than others but I guess that’s my point: when does someone have “another” Jesus?

Erich <><

[Guest]

I tis not entirrely clear what Paul's opponents were teaching, as referenced in 2 Cor 11:4. This is from a Bible Gateway commentary:

Putting all of this together, it is a reasonable conjecture that Paul's rivals were Palestinian Jews who, claiming the backing of the Jerusalem church, came to Corinth carrying letters of reference and sporting an impressive array of credentials (such as visions, ecstatic experiences and revelations). They sought to sway their audience through polished delivery and powerful oratory. They combined this with an outoard show of the Spirit, appealing to the prominent role of the miraculous in Jesus' ministry. The intruders' focus on the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, compelling rhetoric and Jesus the wonderworker may well be what Paul cryptically refers to as "another Jesus/Spirit/gospel." If so, their approach is not much different from what we call "power evangelism" today.

I dont think that RC's technically teach "another Jesus" but the RC practice in regard to Jesus is questionable. JWs and Mormons, IMO teach another Jesus (but not according to Joel Osteen!). I suupose we "react" to them by trying to teach the truth about Jesus, in love.

TK

[Guest]

Yeah, it's interesting because when you hear people mention someone like the Mormons the overwhelming reaction is of a false gospel and false Jesus (which I won't deny) and yet when the RC's come up we generally think more favorably; and yet I can't help but think that the situation Paul clearly proclaims as false in Galatians applying more to RC's: they share the same Jesus but haven't they returned to the "weak and beggarly elements" with all their traditions that they feel they need keep in order to stay in God's good graces (Gal 2:21)? Just an observation.

Erich <><

[Guest]

I don't know why the Catholics have "returned to the 'weak and beggarly elements'" any more than the Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans (Episcopalians), or virtually any other denomination.

I can't imagine Paul or Peter belonging to any of these organizations (which in my opinion are man-made clubs).

If it comes to "doctrines", I think the Catholics understand enabling grace (Titus 2) in a way which the others generally don't. I think that understanding goes a long way.

The others usually understand grace as no more than "the unmerited favour of God."

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for the post. I do agree with you that there are many in Christian denominations who are just going through the motions (Rev 3:1, Mtt 15:8 ) just as much as someone who may attend a more Orthodox service. It just seems (to my limited knowledge) that if I had to pick between RC and a denomination service I would chose the denomination because, although possibly corrupt in some ways (Phil 1:15f vs. Gal 2:21?), their basis for salvation is generally founded on faith alone (while keeping passages like Jm 2:18 in mind). And just as I believe there are those who are truly saved in denominations I believe the same can be true of a RC because the problem isn't traditions or rituals but it's when they are used in way to make one think they are some how more righteous in God's eyes for doing them. Because even Paul (Acts 21:26) didn't seem against Jewish practices; the difference is he wasn't doing it to become better in God's eyes and was adamant against those who did (as in Galatians).

I can't imagine Paul or Peter belonging to any of these organizations (which in my opinion are man-made clubs).

I would agree (1 Cor 1:11f) however I don't think Paul would object to attending a denomination service (or RC service for that matter) if it would help further the gospel in some way (1 Cor 9:22).

If it comes to "doctrines", I think the Catholics understand enabling grace (Titus 2) in a way which the others generally don't. I think that understanding goes a long way.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the "enabling grace" a little more as I will claim ignorance to a lot of what a Roman Catholic would profess.

And that kind of brings me back to my original question, if I may be so bold as to throw in the JW's and Mormons, would it be their imperfect doctrine that would separate them from God? Could someone, who isn't just going through the motions but truly desires God be turned away if he didn't believe in, for example, the orthodox view of the trinity (ie "another Jesus"?) as others may?

Blessings,
Erich <><

[Guest]

Hi Erich,

I'll save enabling grace for my next post. Meanwhile, I'd like to comment on your final paragraph:

And that kind of brings me back to my original question, if I may be so bold as to throw in the JW's and Mormons, would it be their imperfect doctrine that would separate them from God? Could someone, who isn't just going through the motions but truly desires God be turned away if he didn't believe in, for example, the orthodox view of the trinity (ie "another Jesus"?) as others may?

First, I'd like to comment on the word "doctrine". The Scriptural word so translated does not have the meaning of the current word "doctrine". Note this dictionary definition:

doc-trine (doktrin)n.
1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor, teacher, from docere, to teach. See dek-.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The Greek word didachā simply meant "a teaching". This meaning is identical to the archaic meaning #4 in the dictionary definition above.
You will notice that where the word is used in the New Testament, it refers not to dogmas about the Trinity, or "eternal security" or "the deity of Christ", but the Scriptural "doctrines" were teachings about how to live.

You will notice the references to "the doctrine of Christ". This is none other than the teaching of Christ as found in Matthew 5,6, and 7, as well as elsewhere.

Hebrews 6:1 RSV Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God.
2 John 1:9 RSV Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.

The verse, 2 John 1:9 reminds one of the words of our Lord Himself. Jesus concluded His teaching in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 with these words:

Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it." Matt 7:24-27

It will not be the false beliefs the Mormons and JWs which will send them some of them to Hell (Gehenna). Just as it won't be the false beliefs of Baptists, Pentecostals, or any other Christian Group which will send some of them to Hell. Rather in all cases it will be the failure to forsake all and follow Jesus, submitting to Him as Lord of their lives.

Jesus said:

Luke 14:33 So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

We also read:

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give aeonion life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)

[Guest]

Thanks Paidion,

I appreciate you taking the time to make your point clear and easy to follow. That is where I think I stand as well. For awhile now I tend to summarize a true relationship with God as being a "heart" issue and not a "head" issue. I know that's a pretty general statement but if I could expand on it I think it would follow the train of thought you shared in your last post. God isn't looking for people who can do something for him (works based relationship) or people who are able to understand spiritual things (intellectually based relationship) He simply wants those who love him and desire him and His "doctrines/teachings" above all else. And that is how I tend to approach situations now when I am sharing with those outside or even inside the Christian faith.

Not to backtrack here, but I am just curious what is your interpretation of 2Cor 11:4? You seem to know Greek pretty well and it looks like Paul uses two different words for "another" in that passage. I was wondering what your take on it is.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say about "enabling grace" too.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Concerning 2 Corinthians 11:4, you are right in saying there are two different Greek words used there. Paul wrote of them receiving a different [Greek "heteros", from which we get "heterosexual"]spirit and a different gospel. But Paul used the word "allos" [other] when he wrote of another Jesus. That word, as in English, can refer either to that which is different from, or that which is additional. Here is an example of the latter use:

Matthew 13:33 He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."

Come to think of it, this parable was both a different parable [though not necessarily different in kind] and an additional parable.

Personally, I think Paul's reference to "another Jesus" is his way of emphasizing that these superlative[The Greek word literally means "showing above"] apostles did not really know and understand Jesus.

Some people say that the Moslems believe in "a different God" than the One in whom Christians believe. Since both Moslems and Christians believe in One God, whom they identify as the Creator of the Universe, I don't think they do believe in different Gods. I believe they have entirely different concepts of the character of God.

One can say that even within Christendom, people hold various views concerning the character of God. Some believe that God is "just" by which they mean His "justice" (in a legal sense) must be appeased by sacrifice. Others believe He is not interested in sacrifice but in obedience. Do these two groups believe in "different Gods"? Or do they differ in their understanding of the character of the same God? I think the latter.

Some believe God will send over 99% of humanity to everlasting torment, and that only a tiny minority will spend eternity in heaven. Others believe that God will ultimately reconcile all people to Himself. Do these two groups believe in "different Gods"? Or do they differ in their understanding of the character of the same God? Again, I think the latter.

So I think Paul's statement about these superlative apostles, who were self-appointed and not chosen by God, were proclaiming a Jesus of a completely different character than the one which the true apostles whom God appointed proclaimed. Thus Paul referred to them as proclaiming "another Jesus".