For some reason, I was thinking about the structure of the New Testament Church after the ascension of the Savior. What is clear is that Peter is the Chief Apostle and the one left in charge by Christ. By LDS theology, Peter held the Keys of the Kingdom as “President of the Church” although two LDS Church Presidents, David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball, likened his position more as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. But who succeed Peter after his death?
And as a second thought, what of all the doctrine taught by Paul? Did he have the authority to declare Church doctrine?
Peter’s death is not recorded in the New Testament and any information is not terribly reliable. He is thought to have died in Rome and is buried at the Vatican. According to the Catholic Church, the Pope that follows Peter as the leader is Linus, The Bishop of Rome, who may or may not be the person mentioned 2 Timothy 4:21. However, no credible evidence exists that the Office of Bishop of Rome has anything to do with the Holy Apostleship. It is therefore, unclear, who, if anyone succeed Peters as the Head of the Church with the Keys of the Priesthood.
The Apostle Paul was certainly among the most prolific New Testament writers with 13 of the epistles attributed to him included in the canon of the New Testament. We also know that he was a “second generation” Apostle, having had a vision of the Savior, but not having ever been in His earthly presence.
So Christ’s teachings Paul received were basically transmitted second hand from the Apostles who knew Christ personally.
In Paul’s writings, he declared doctrine on these important issues:
a. Men and Women must be redeemed from the fall.
b. Justification by Faith, no longer following the Law of Moses
c. Salvation by Grace, through the Atonement of Christ
d. We become new creatures in Christ, our nature changed.
e. Gifts of the Spirit
f. Jesus Christ transcends all things
And many others.
The question is this:
Was Paul’s teaching established doctrine taught by Christ and/or authorized by the Chief Apostle after Christ’s death, or was he proclaiming new doctrine, never before taught? And if he was doing the latter, did he possess the authority to do so?
The Christian world, including the LDS, rely very, very heavily of the writings of Paul for much of its doctrinal justification, so it is important to know whether Paul was acting under authority or just preaching his own ideas.
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
“Was Paul’s teaching established doctrine taught by Christ and/or authorized by the Chief Apostle after Christ’s death, or was he proclaiming new doctrine, never before taught?”
We take for granted that Peter was the chief apostle but I’m not sure on what that’s based. There’s good evidence that Luke wrote Acts in such a way to compare Peter favorably with Jesus and bolster his position. I’m wondering if there really was a hierarchy with the top down authoritarian organization that the Catholic and Eastern churches have. If not it would make it much more likely that Paul with his spiritual experience and skills could establish himself as an “apostle” and exert the influence he did.
We do take Peter’s leadership position for granted for several reasons. He is almost always named first among the apostles. Was, by the accounts, the first called to be an apostle and he is recognized by Joseph Smith and the Church in Rome as the Chief Apostle. It seems clear that Paul as called as an apostle to replace a dead one, but again, he was pretty far down the list, if we view it from the LDS hierarchy standpoint. So, that is why I fashioned my question the way I did.
I remember the choice of I think Mathias to replace Judas but I’d not heard about Paul as a replacement. My point is that some things are taken for granted about the history of the early church but there’s a lot we don’t really know.
Very good post.
I think it’s much like in our church. Apostles such as Bruce R McConkie certainly weren’t the “first” apostles, but were a number of “generations” down the line. He was quite prolific in his writings, however, and has influenced much of the thinking and practices of our current church.
In many/most areas, McConkie’s writings actually did reflect “official” doctrine. But it is also well-documented that there are areas where what he wrote were mostly his own opinion or were “wrong” (ie. not necessarily false, but just not the official viewpoint of the Church).
I would guess the same thing is true regarding Paul’s writings. They are most likely “true” representations of early Christian doctrine, but I am sure that his own emphasis and opinions are mixed in. Without any other primary and contemporary sources, however, I don’t think that we’ll ever know.
The trick is trying to figure out what doctrines were Paul’s and which ones were added by others in Paul’s name. The whole business of women keeping silent in churches and keeping their head covered is likely not from Paul at all. Borg’s book, “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time” has some interesting insights.
Mike S. Excellent points. We are more apt to draw the line on some of McConkie’s teachings especially after MoDoc debacle and the amount of time since he left us.
With Paul, there is this given, this reverence afford him even by Joseph Smith. Not much exists in the historical record either way.
Whether the women in Church thing is real or not, it has been largely ignored by the contemporary Churches, even the LDS. I suppose there are some stanch Evangelicals who stick with it.
For the LDS, it kind of fits into the meme the Bible was altered. For the Evangelicals, it is difficult if you want inerrant scripture (though they do have to deal with multiple different early versions).
Getting back to the original question about whether or not Paul had authority to preach and originate new doctrine, it seems clear he was commissioned to preach given the record in Acts. As far as new doctrine there’s just a short few steps between insight and conviction of the truth. Match that with believing you’re an apostle, which Paul did, and you have doctrine. It gets preached and repeated and before long it’s what everyone believes. Sometimes it will bump up against a different opinion such as James and works then you have to try and reconcile it. Luther’s approach was more original in that case. He wanted to leave out James.
It likely came down to his believing he had the truth, had the right to preach the truth, and the right to tell others to believe it or else. Just like modern times only different.
In studying the parables of Jesus, and then comparing the message of Paul, I have spotted huge contradictions. I have come to the conclusion that there is a choice to be made…follow Jesus, or follow Paul. The only way to do this is to do in in depth study on your own, first pray for guidance. If you are of his fold you will know his voice, if you are of another fold you will not recognize his voice. Let the wheat and the tares grow together, they will look the same to most. Who was the evil one who scattered the bad seed while he was sleeping? What did Jesus mean when he said “it is finished ” did he mean “it is almost finished, and by the way I am sending someone else in a couple of decades to finish what I couldn’t do? “. Go back and see the roots of the canon and how it was decided on, and who decided on what books and letters would be nominated into our Holy Bible.
Due to the proportion of scriptures attributed to Paul, which the current Church hasn’t modified or disavowed, it would seem that Paul had the most influence on Christian doctrine. It should be kept in mind that at the time most of the Church were Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire in their respective communities. This is why Paul would write much about Old Testament concepts which “Gentile” converts (“Rise, Peter, Kill and Eat..”, Acts 10:13) would likely have been oblivious about. Over and over he seemed to “de-Judiaze” the Jewish Christians, and he, being once a “Pharisee amongst Pharisees”, would know more about the Torah and the mindset of the predominantly Jewish members of the early Church.
It would be reasonable to suppose that Peter was equivalent to the “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator”, or President of the Church, though they didn’t necessarily term him thus. Paul himself, if not President of the Quorum of the Twelve (there’s no reason to suppose that the early Church observed strict seniority as is the current practice and not doctrine nowadays), was certainly a prominent scriptorian for reasons previously cited. I do see evidence also that Paul was a forceful personality. Considering that he had the “fortitude” (or huevos) to get up on Mars Hill, a situation that could have likely gotten him killed, and declare to the Athenians the identity of their “Unknown” God, he likely had to be a tad headstrong.
Since many “plain and precious things”, including scriptures pertaining to New Testament times, have evidently been lost, it’s difficult to summarize just what what Paul’s authority. Enough that for all practical purposes he turned the Church from being a sect of Judaism (at least in the eyes of Roman society) to a bonafide separate religion in its own right.
Douglas,
“Over and over he seemed to “de-Judiaze” the Jewish Christians, and he, being once a “Pharisee amongst Pharisees”, would know more about the Torah and the mindset of the predominantly Jewish members of the early Church.”
The Pharisee were a sect of Judaism, not unlike Baptist or Southern Baptist or Methodist or United Methodist. That did not make anyone an expert on scriptures necessarily. Had he been called a scribe, it would have been more likely that his knowledge of the scriptures might have been greater. I am not saying he was or wasn’t, but just being a Pharisee didn’t make a Jew any different.