Does the church actually follow Jesus — or did we quietly swap Him out for Paul somewhere along the way?

• H

  Hana1w ago

  This question changed my life, honestly. I grew up in a church where we had ENTIRE sermon series on Romans but I literally cannot remember one full sermon preached through the Sermon on the Mount. Not one. The beatitudes are more radical than anything Paul ever wrote and we treat them like a warm-up passage for Sunday school kids.

  187Reply
• TK

  Taylor K.1w ago

  If Christianity is SUPPOSED to be about following Jesus then explain to me why the Nicene Creed goes directly from 'born of the Virgin Mary' to 'suffered under Pontius Pilate.' His entire ministry — the teaching, the healings, the Sermon on the Mount — just vanished into a comma. That comma has always bothered me. Maybe that comma is the whole argument.

  176Reply
• R

  Riley1w ago

  I spent three years in seminary and the most honest thing any professor ever said to me was in a private conversation: 'Luther's Paul is not necessarily first-century Paul, and first-century Paul is not necessarily Jesus.' That comment haunted me for a decade. Still does.

  163Reply
• JK

  Jordan K.1w ago

  And a lot of people who wave the Pauline flag mainly love it because Paul talks about doctrine and belief while Jesus keeps talking about what you do with your money. Funny how we're all suspicious of the parts that cost us something. That cuts both directions and you know it.

  158Reply
• M

  Marco1w ago

  My grandmother never read a word of Romans in her life. She read the Gospels, she prayed every morning, she fed the hungry, she visited prisoners with our church's jail ministry for 30 years. She is the most Christlike person I have ever known. I do not think God is sitting in heaven worried that she didn't work through substitutionary atonement theory.

  149Reply
• L

  Liam1w ago

  I converted from agnosticism five years ago specifically because of the Sermon on the Mount. Not Romans. Not John 3:16. Matthew 5-7 hit me like a truck because it described a kind of human being I desperately wanted to be and had never seen anywhere else. If someone had handed me Romans first I'd probably still be an atheist. Just saying.

  141Reply
• LM

  Liam M.1w ago

  False dichotomy. Paul wrote under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit who inspired the Gospel writers. Pitting Jesus against Paul is like pitting Genesis against Revelation. They're one unified revelation. This is just a cute way of smuggling in red-letter-only theology without admitting that's what you're doing.

  134Reply
• H

  Hana1w ago

  I'll say the quiet part loud: a lot of people who want to 'get back to Jesus' and ditch Paul mainly want to ditch the parts of Paul that make them feel bad. Sexuality ethics. Male-female roles. Church discipline. The cost of discipleship. It's not really about recovering the historical Jesus. It's about building a Jesus who happens to agree with progressive culture. And I'm tired of pretending that's not what's happening in half these conversations.

  122Reply
• MB

  Marco B.1w ago

  The problem isn't Paul. The problem is American Christianity's love affair with Paul filtered through a very specific Reformed hermeneutic filtered through a very specific North American suburban evangelical culture. That's three layers of interpretation away from the actual text and we act like we're reading Paul directly.

  113Reply
• Q

  Quinn1w ago

  Here's what I actually think and I'll probably get roasted for it: Paul was a genius who genuinely understood the implications of the resurrection better than most of the disciples did. But genius is dangerous. Paul's framing became THE framing so completely that even reading the Gospels now we unconsciously filter them through Pauline theology instead of the other way around. That's not Paul's fault. It's ours.

  108Reply
• M

  Maya1w ago

  This. 1000%. We are not reading Paul. We are reading John Piper reading John Calvin reading Augustine reading Paul. That's not nothing but we should at least know the telephone game we're playing.

  97Reply
• M

  Marco1w ago

  If you think following Jesus and following Paul are really in tension, I'd genuinely challenge you to sit down and READ Acts. Watch how Paul lives. Watch what he suffers. Watch him quote Jesus repeatedly. Watch him plant churches and then circle back to correct them when they get wealthy and comfortable and start ignoring the poor. That man was not building a religion of comfortable doctrinal abstractions. He was a man on fire.

  94Reply
• PT

  Priya T.1w ago

  This is what liberal theologians have been saying for a hundred years to deconstruct the faith. Jefferson literally cut the miracles out of his Bible to get to 'pure Jesus.' You know who else wanted a Jesus without Paul? People who wanted a Jesus without accountability and without the cross. The atonement theology that saves you IS Pauline and you should be grateful for it.

  91Reply
• T

  Taylor1w ago

  Nobody said it was merely ethical imitation. But some of us think that 'loving God and loving your neighbor' being the whole of the law — said by JESUS HIMSELF — might be worth more than 4,000 systematic theology lectures on the ordo salutis.

  88Reply
• I

  Iris1w ago

  But doesn't that concede the point? If our foundational doctrinal statement is entirely about WHO Jesus is and not at all about WHAT Jesus taught, doesn't that tell us something about where Christian theology landed?

  83Reply
• A

  Avery1w ago

  Jesus IS the Word of God in a way Paul is not. That's not red-letter heresy, that's just classical Christology. The Word became flesh — not epistle.

  79Reply
• D

  Diego1w ago

  Okay I'll bite. Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass away until all is fulfilled. Paul in Galatians says you are severed from Christ if you try to be justified by the Law. Explain that harmony to me without using the phrase 'different contexts' as a magic wand.

  76Reply
• R

  Riley1w ago

  okay but like. when did you last hear a sermon on 'blessed are the meek'? vs how many times have you heard justification by faith alone from romans? i attend church every sunday. i keep score now. its not close.

  72Reply
• I2

  Iris 211w ago

  Nobody is saying Paul was a bad man or a false apostle. The question is about how the institutional church weighted things. Paul's letters were copied and distributed and debated and systematized in ways the Sermon on the Mount just... wasn't. The canon is fair. The emphasis isn't.

  71Reply
• YM

  Yuki M.1w ago

  Grateful for it or not, the question is whether it's accurate, not whether it's convenient. That's not a liberal talking point, that's just... logic.

  67Reply
• NK

  Noah K.1w ago

  N.T. Wright has made a compelling case that we've misread Paul through a Lutheran lens for 500 years and that Paul's actual theology is far closer to Jesus than we assume. The 'New Perspective on Paul' isn't perfect but it at least takes the problem seriously instead of pretending the tension doesn't exist.

  66Reply
• LB

  Leo B.1w ago

  Lol 'most scholars' doing a lot of heavy lifting there since that threefold division of the law was basically invented by medieval Catholic theologians and has been heavily criticized even by Reformed scholars. Just be honest: we have a real exegetical problem here and harmonizing it takes work.

  62Reply
• ML

  Morgan L.1w ago

  Paul himself says 'imitate me as I imitate Christ.' He never claims to be the source. He points back constantly. This whole 'Paul vs. Jesus' framing is exactly what Marcionites used to tear the canon apart in the second century and the church rightly called it heresy then. Nothing new under the sun.

  58Reply
• T_

  Theo _x1w ago

  I'm a pastor and I want to push back gently. My church works through the Gospels constantly. I think this criticism is sometimes fair but wildly overstated. Visit a good liturgical church — Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox — and you'll get the full lectionary cycle which includes heavy Gospel reading. The Paul-only problem is specifically an evangelical low-church problem.

  55Reply
• N

  Nina1w ago

  The question assumes Jesus and Paul disagree. Show me where they do, specifically. Not vibes. Not 'emphasis.' Chapter and verse where Paul contradicts Jesus. I'll wait.

  54Reply
• D

  Diego1w ago

  being criticized by reformed theologians is not an argument against a position, it's just a description of who disagrees with it

  53Reply
• SR

  Sam R.1w ago

  The Nicene Creed is a creed, not a biography. It addresses specific heresies about the PERSON of Christ. Creeds don't pretend to be encyclopedias of Christian living. You're criticizing a hammer for being a bad screwdriver.

  48Reply
• R

  Reese1w ago

  That's fair actually. My Catholic friends get more Gospel exposure in the liturgy than I ever got in years of Baptist church. That's almost embarrassing to admit.

  44Reply
• JR

  Jordan R.1w ago

  Someone once told me that if you removed every quote from Paul from evangelical worship music you'd lose about 80% of the lyrics. I haven't fact-checked that but honestly it FEELS true and that's a problem all by itself.

  44Reply
• T

  Taylor1w ago

  With all due respect to your grandmother, feelings and anecdotes don't determine orthodoxy. That's why we have creeds. That's why Athanasius stood alone against the world. Christianity has doctrinal content. It is not merely ethical imitation.

  37Reply
• D

  Drew1w ago

  That's a real tension. Most scholars deal with it by distinguishing ceremonial, civil, and moral law. You can disagree with that framework but it's not like nobody has thought about this.

  31Reply
• T

  Theo1w ago

  N.T. Wright has also been criticized by basically every Reformed theologian alive so citing him here is going to land differently depending on who's reading.

  29Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about