Why do protestants seem to focus almost completely on st Paul? It almost sometimes seems as though they hold him in higher regard than the rest
Can’t speak for all, but I know some focus on this because they are trying to support their position that St. Peter was not really a Pope.
…looking forward to the answers…
Me too:thumbsup: I have wondered this same question…
Well, it’s hard to pin down Protestants as a monolith because they are such a diverse group, but I suspect a lot of is because they think they find in St. Paul’s writings the strongest statements supporting their bedrock doctrines of salvation by faith alone (Sola Fide) and reliance on Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura). Of course, those doctrines are not supported by Scripture, but that’s what they think, anyway.
In doing so (whether they do so on purpose or not), they are able to downplay the clear teachings by Jesus in the Gospel that emphasize the necessity of doing good works and the possibility of losing one’s salvation (these are also taught in St. Paul, but somehow they allow the clear meaning of these passages to be overridden by teachings they place more emphasis on. For example if you point out that St. Paul says in Romans 2:6-10 that we will be judged by our works, they will often answer with, "Well, what about Ephesians 3:28 where is says we’re saved by faith?-- as if one verse of Scripture cancels out another :rolleyes:).
I’ve met Protestants that are so extreme on this, that they will only read St. Paul and the Book of Revelation. To them, the Old Testament only applied to the ancient Jews and the Gospels and most of the rest of the NT was written for the Jews of Jesus’ time (and those that will be on earth after the “Rapture”-- but that’s a whole 'nother set of errors ;)), and doesn’t apply to us in “the Church Age” at all! :eek:
I have heard some non-Catholic ministers refer to Paul as the greatest apostle. I never gave it much thought at the time when I was a Baptist, but now that I’m Catholic I see that as an attempt to lessen the importance of St. Peter.
It is true from my background as a Baptist that Paul’s writings are exhalted above the rest. From my recollections I think its because of all the single verse hand-picked quotes that can be used by them to support their misguided system of teachings.
=Shaolen;11368722]Why do protestants seem to focus almost completely on st Paul? It almost sometimes seems as though they hold him in higher regard than the rest
Because God has not gratned them [YET] HIS Understanding of what actually IS “Faith”;
& His RIGHT understanding of His Devinely Inspired Words.
Paul; notabbly ROMANS can be taken out of context to “prove” what they choose to believe about Faith, Salvation, Forgivness of Sins and:
can and DOES have only One set of Faith beliefs which He did not waith more than 1,000+ years to make known.
AND has founded only One Church: todays CC following the Tradition of ONLY One Chosen people.
Quoting Paul makes them feel good and secure in theit beliefs; but even then do it sellectively:(
God Bless you,
Perhaps because he wrote the bulk of the New Testament, and because he wrote doctrine as opposed to telling stories.
It probably has something to do with Paul being awesome. Also I could be wrong but Peter isn’t really mentioned after the first 12 books of acts and has only two other books to his name. In comparison to Paul, Peter is noob. Don’t take that to heart I was looking for a word that convey my feeling about Peter… and I understand he was important to the formation of the church.
I feel like I am going to get the same reactions as when I tell people I don’t like the books to the Thessalonians. Noob is definitely an overstatement and was meant to be funny.
This has been my observation as well.
Interesting tid bit: that said, St. Paul, Minnesota, is named for the *CATHOLIC *Cathedral of St. Paul–a magnificent church building, if you ever get the chance to visit it…
They stake their claim to St. Paul, and St. John (e.g.–John 3:16)-but both these saints’ writings, are imminently Catholic (e.g.–John Ch. 6; St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Timothy, among others…).
Chapters, you mean?
Either way, what pray tell are you talking about? St. Peter is featured more prominently in the earliest ch’s of Acts than any other Apostles (the speech after the Pentecost ring a bell?)
Always listed first amongst the Apostles in the Gospels;
specifically named more than all of the other Apostles in the Gospels…combined!
…many other examples such as these…
When I was in the Assemblies of God Paul was everything to us. We learned all about his life, his mission journeys, his conflicts with the Judaizers , and his supposed independence of the other Apostles, especially of his “dressing down” of St. Peter. Our preachers used his writings almost exclusively in their sermons. The only time we looked into the Gospels was to confirm who Christ was, and to honor his death and resurrection. His actual words were almost never quoted or discussed.
Christmas was the only time we heard anything about Mary, and almost always with the caveat that, “of course, after having Jesus she and Joseph had other children” just in case we got any impression that she was in any way special. I thought nothing of it at the time–nothing at all, sad to say. Paul was the only Apostle whose life and teaching really meant anything to us because in him we thought we found the support for our most cherished beliefs, such as faith alone and sola scriptura. We weren’t OSAS people, but we came pretty close to it, again from cherry-picking Paul’s writings.
sorry but St. Peter is mentioned 155 times and all the others combined are mentioned 130 times. St Peter is far from being a “noob”
It’s been my experience that much emphasis is placed on the perceptions surrounding manner of Paul’s “apostleship and authority”. The conversion on the road to Damascus and statements such as Gal 1:1 are seen to enforce the idea that He was taught by Jesus directly and “not by man”
When these ideas are seen independently, they are mistakenly expounded on to show that Paul is distinct and separate from “the Church”. Many modern sola scriptura advocates see themselves as taking on this same style as a way to reject the Church and the replace it with the invisible church. In this way, they can identify themselves with Paul.
So, they can then say, “I am just like Paul because…”
–The Holy Spirit speaks to me so I can relay the truth of the Bible.
–my faith is between me and Jesus.
–I was ordained by God.
and even – I am the mouthpiece of God.
Because they see Paul as in a “personal relationship” with God (like them) and Peter and company as attached to this “Church concept” which is seen as a threat to the “personal relationship”, much focus is placed on following Paul’s example. Of course, it is a fallacy to suggest that Paul was hanging is own shingle.
Do not mistake noob for someone who is new. Even though as a young Christian I think I am justified in saying he was new.
Yes I meant chapters
Do you consider Paul an apostle, because if you do and we are going by number of times someone is mentioned then I think Paul still wins, I could be wrong and probably am, but when combined with the other people I consider apostles Peter does not win the name count. Is this what we really want this thread to be about. How many times peoples names are mentioned.
The fact of the matter is that the number of books attributed to Paul are larger. This may explain why he is more prominent in anyone’s thoughts. Also Goya I am talking about exactly what I said Peter is mentioned in less than chapters of acts then Paul.
Another reason may be that when peter is mentioned in the gospels most protestants probably just focus on Jesus.
All joking aside Peter is extremely important even to protestants. Even though he is referred to as Satan by Jesus. I couldn’t help myself;)
I could be wrong and probably am, but when combined with the other people I consider apostles Peter does not win the name count. Is this what we really want this thread to be about. How many times peoples names are mentioned.
All joking aside Peter is extremely important even to protestants. Even though he is referred to as Satan by Jesus.
There seems to be a myopic misunderstanding here. The reference to St Peter as “”Satan” is solely with respect to the fact that Peter had not yet come to understand the necessity for the crucifixion Christ was describing, and following in Matthew is the Transfiguration.
Why would you want to deny Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God over giving His authority and Primacy to Peter as His Vicar? That Christ chose St Peter to be His Supreme Vicar of His sole Church is the key here:
It was Jesus who said to His apostles “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16)
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Would you deny St John and St Paul Too?
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! We are redeemed by Christ’s Passion and Death (heaven was opened); we are not saved until we co-operate with Him.
Or do you doubt St Paul again? “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience. We see here that Christ’s Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) is His Mystical Body through whom all salvation comes.
As the Word of God, the Bible as defined and given to us by the Catholic Church, emphasises the supremacy of St Peter as Christ’s chosen Vicar.
Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).
After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).
Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
attended a bible study with 8 methodist folk, wonderful people, i was the only catholic-
for nearly 5 yrs in their study-- in all that time it was mostly o.t. and much about paul,that
was fine but very little of the gospels–only once the gospel of john-- they skipped chapter6 and most of 20. i had to insert everything i could and told what they were missing, so i had to share this with you. i thank the sisters of st.ann for my early childhood education.
Noob? That’s a new one.
Paul was in fact awsome Yet, I agree with Peter, that some of the things he says in his letters are hard to understand. Nevertheless, we are provided with more of his writtings than the others.
Paul was very inspired and understandably! It was his calling to preach against the very spirit that caused him to persecute the Church in the beginning. Therefore his ministry was also a witness to suffer for the sake of Jesus.
Paul on at least a couple occassions took his disputes and his gospel to be confirmed through the Apostles. This should be a huge lesson to the protestants who have many disputes among each other. But somehow they miss this humble aspect of Paul. They rather focus on the bold, seemingly individual authority Paul had. Thinking, because he confronted Peter about insincere behavior, that he was somehow excluded from Peter’s authority.
What Catholics should learn about this, is the nature and meaning of Peter’s authority, as in what it was and what it was not. There is greatness in the sense of possitions of authority and then there is greatness in the sense of doing what Jesus is commanding us corporeally and individually. Paul’s greatness in the latter was certainly much. How much, only God truly knows. We know he was an awsome Apostle and suffered much for our Lord. Peter and even the other’s greatness likewise is ultimately known to God alone, yet we know they did great things to establish our Lord’s Church against much ooposotion.
Protestants theology can be very complicated in its simplicity. In their honest attempt to hold Scripture as their sole authority, they forget that the whole meaning of Scripture is protected by the Lord’s Eucharist! The Eucharist cannot be construed to fit our definition, yet they try this too! They have defined it as meaning the bread and wine symbolize the Word of God which is only Scripture, and therefore the bread and wine is what we interpret Scripture to mean. When the less we try to symbolize the Eucharist as being, and the more we recognize it as Our Lord and nothing else, the more we are brought together to His one faith and one Church.
For me personally, it’s that Catholics say some things Protestants couldn’t imagine Paul ever saying. Some of our arguments are so useless it makes me wonder what kind of letter Paul would write about silly disagreements.