Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

Bercot calls Philip Schaff’s praise of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin an “indictment,” saying they were not pupils of Jesus and “weren’t even pupils of Paul…They were reinterpreters of Paul”; what would count as evidence that someone is interpreting Paul out of context and “making him a teacher above his own master”?

Another way to ask: What would show that someone is pulling Paul’s words out of context and making Paul say more than Paul meant? How could someone end up treating Paul like a higher teacher than Jesus?

Direct Answer For Bercot, evidence would include Paul being used to override Jesus’ own “Kingdom gospel,” producing doctrines that earlier Christians did not recognize, and requiring later “reinterpretation” rather than continuity with apostolic teaching. In other words, if Paul is made to say something that the earliest post-apostolic Christians did not hear in him, Paul has been pulled “out of context.”

Support from Transcript:

Schaff praises Augustine, Luther, Calvin as “pupils of Paul,” but Bercot says that is an “indictment” because Schaff couldn’t call them “pupils of Jesus.”
Bercot states, “they weren’t…pupils of Paul. They were reinterpreters of Paul.”
He explains the problem: “They took Paul out of context and made him a teacher above his own master.”
He argues their fame signals novelty: they are prominent because they “taught things that no one before them had ever taught.”
He sets a continuity check: if no earlier writers taught the same, the doctrine is suspect as non-historic.
He contrasts with “the Kingdom gospel that Jesus preached,” implying Paul should not be weaponized against Jesus’ message.

Discussion Follow-ups When you hear a “Pauline” doctrine, do you instinctively check how it fits with Jesus’ teachings, or do you let Paul control the meaning of Jesus?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10