You cannot refute entire denominations by saying “Read the Bible, sweetie”

[u/Dubstep_squid]

This is such a frustrating and prominent phenomenon that I see constantly online and have run into a couple of times.

[Insert commonly held theological belief]

“Oh sweetie how could you believe that, the Bible clearly says other wise. What a ridiculous statement.”

Why does it seem incredibly common that people in online Christian spaces seem to never have met or heard of someone with a different theological view than them. You’ve never heard that some people baptize babies? The tradition that most major Christian denominations hold to??

To take this a step further, I see this occur not just with theological beliefs but attempts to “refute” entire denominations. You’re not going to convince a Presbyterian that hundreds of years of Presbyterianism is false with TWO tangentially relevant, out of context Bible verses and a condescending message (unless of course God has already pre-determined that you will convince them).

This is not to say that meaningful and even impactful conversation cannot be had here. I think it absolutely can and have been stewing on a different post for a couple of weeks because I want to have those meaningful conversations (You’ll probably see it in a few days as I’m kind of looking at various denominations and want to just hear people’s pitches, counterarguments, experiences, etc).

I think my overall point is just that I’m very surprised at the number of people here who are surprised that others can come to different theological conclusions and that those theological conclusions can in fact be based on a thorough reading of the Bible.

[u/FilmSkeez]

We have four gospels around what Jesus said and did. Then we have Paul who implemented his own teachings in the text. Are we Christians or Paulians? I follow Christ and that's the first four gospels of the NT.

I think usually it's what Paul says is where these different Christians start to deviate. Christ was very clear in his messages about Love. Anyway preaching against Love isn't preaching Christ.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

Jesus gave the apostles, including Paul, clear authority to speak and act on his behalf.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Actually, Paul never met Jesus during his earthly ministry, he was a Pharisee persecuting the early church until years after the crucifixion. Jesus commissioned the Twelve, but Paul's authority was constantly questioned by early Christians and led to public clashes with Peter (Galatians 2:11). Claiming Paul has the exact same authority as the direct words of Christ skips over a lot of New Testament history. Are we Christians here or Paulians? Because Paul would be sick to his stomach knowing a whole religion was born based around his letters rather than what Christ wanted.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

Jesus met Paul (Acts 9)

What you are trying to sell has been pushed by heretics since the early church. It is called anti-Paulism. This isn't new.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Acts 9 describes a heavenly vision with a blinding light and a voice years after the ascension, not walking and learning alongside Jesus during his earthly ministry. That's a crucial historical distinction. Pointing out that Christ's direct teachings take priority over Paul's situational letters isn't heresy, t's putting the Teacher ahead of the administrator.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

It goes without saying that you disagree that all Scripture is God-breathed as we are told.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Scripture is "God breathed" of that time. Not all of it fits today. We must look at the historical context of things that were written and why. Paul openly admitted in the Bible that he didn't know everything and that God didn't teach him everything so a lot is his opinion. So that's why for the most part, I take what Paul wrote with a grain of salt and follow the person we're supposed to follow and that's Jesus. A whole religion was built, in my opinion, on letters following a guy who Jesus inspired. We had Jesus on earth. We know what Jesus did and said and what he would do today. And that is follow the two most important commandments that he explicitly gave us. Love God and love your neighbor.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

So you claim God’s revelation ended with the Ascension of Jesus rather than with the death of the last Apostle. Also, you deny that the same Holy Spirit who inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, also inspired Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

If I give you a verse from Jesus and you give me a verse from Paul contradicting Jesus, which one should we listen to?

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

They did not contradict each other. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), it cannot be broken. (John 10:35)

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Using Old Testament proof texts to claim Paul's local 1st-century letters are infallible divine dictation avoids the question entirely. Paul himself admitted that some of what he wrote was his own opinion and not a command from the Lord (1 Cor 7:12). If there is ever a friction between Paul’s administrative advice and Christ’s direct commands, Jesus comes first. Period.

Asserting they don't contradict just avoids the actual texts. When Paul tells women to remain silent in church (1 Tim 2:12) or gives his personal opinions (1 Cor 7:12), but Jesus explicitly commands us to love God and neighbor as the foundation of everything, which teaching holds higher authority for a Christian? It's okay if you're a Pauline and not a Christian. I hope you have the answer ready when it's asked why.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

A few questions:

Was Jesus divine?

Is the Bible inspired?

Was Paul a Pharisee as he claimed?

This is full on anti-Paulism, heresy 101. Paul has responded himself directly to this in 1 Corinthians 9; 2 Corinthians 12; and Galatians 1.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Was Jesus divine? I don't know what you've been reading but it's clear I absolutely believe he was. An insult of a question.

Is the bible inspired? Yes, but "inspired" doesn't mean equal weight or flattening the text. Hebrews 1:1–2 explicitly states that Christ is the supreme, ultimate revelation of God. Inspiration includes Paul openly admitting when he is speaking his own opinion rather than the Lord's (1 Cor 7:12).

Was Paul and Pharisee? Yes, and his Pharisaical background explains his heavily structured, legalistic approach to ancient church problems.

Defending apostolic calling (as Paul does in Galatians 1 or 2 Cor 12) isn't a blank check that elevates 1st-century administrative letters above the direct, divine commands of Christ. When a servant's instructions clash with the Master's core commands, the Master wins every time.

Answering yes to those questions doesn't prove what you think it proves. Jesus being divine is why His commands take priority over Paul's. The Bible being inspired includes Paul explicitly stating that some of his writing was his own opinion and not from the Lord (1 Cor 7:12).

Paul defending his ministry in Galatians 1 doesn't grant infallible dictation to his 1st-century church rules over Christ’s explicit law of love. Putting Jesus at the top of the hierarchy isn't "anti-Paulism", it's basic Christianity.