Well, I do think that Paul would have thought utterly ridiculous the idea that whatever one believes at the moment of death is the sole determinant of one's eternal fate. But I think though that Paul did believe that it was impossible to act morally if one did not believe correctly.
That there was a dispute between James and Paul (or two flanks of the church represented by them) is beyond question; but what I am trying to figure out is what brought about that dispute, and how was it ultimately resolved?
For one thing, I am finally coming to understand the dynamics in play with the reasons the NT canon was developed as it is. Including the synoptic, Johannine, and Pauline literature was a stand in favor of attempting to integrate these different positions, of finding a way to unify different elements of the Christian community and read into their beliefs a unified stand that demonstrates what salvation through Christ means.
But I think that this stand is taken retroactively, meaning IMO that the tendency since the formulation of the canon has been to gloss over fundamental differences between groups of early Christians over what "salvation" actually meant and what differing attitudes about human nature these differing beliefs reflected. IOW, this is not merely a debate over whether good works reflect right belief (as in Paul) or whether good works reinforce right belief (as in James) -- but also a debate over whether the transformation is immediate ("in the blink of an eye" as in Paul) or progressive and ongoing (as is reflected for example in the Gospel of Matthew), and also a debate over what that transformation reflects and brings about.
However I do not think that I am perceiving a false dilemma. I think that there is a real and obvious tension between the maintenance of the church as a worldly body, and individual mystical or spiritual experience. When the church becomes a worldly body, by which I mean a socially authoritative structure, I think that of necessity it takes on a pragmatism not reflected in "naive" mysticism. Authority always tends to mistrust mysticism, witness for example the trial of Meister Eckhart for heresy, unfounded but intended for political reasons to harass him.
In the early church this dissonance was reflected in the tensions groups like the Valentinians and the Montanists, and later the Donatists, experienced in their dealings with the central church in Rome. The more authoritative the church became, the more heated these struggles became, until they erupted into violence.
My phrasing of the dilemma I perceive is awkward and reflects an issue largely formulated by Christianity post-Protestantism. But the dilemma I'm trying to understand is a perennial problem, one not unique to Christianity and one not unique to modern theology. What I am attempting to do is to learn to what extent the dilemma existed at the time the NT was written.
Since the historical record appears to show Jerusalem as the center of Christian power at the time of Paul, we might see Paul as a radical within the church struggling against the central authority of James. Acts 21, for example, appears to show Paul being coerced into compromise with James ("Do what we tell you"). Paul's letter to the Galatians demonstrates Paul's differences with James' focus on matters like circumcision and eating only kosher meat. Paul's writings appear to be as much a radical response to the authority of James as they are a statement of theological position. But to what extent that is true, I do not yet know.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-03-07 07:54 am (UTC)That there was a dispute between James and Paul (or two flanks of the church represented by them) is beyond question; but what I am trying to figure out is what brought about that dispute, and how was it ultimately resolved?
For one thing, I am finally coming to understand the dynamics in play with the reasons the NT canon was developed as it is. Including the synoptic, Johannine, and Pauline literature was a stand in favor of attempting to integrate these different positions, of finding a way to unify different elements of the Christian community and read into their beliefs a unified stand that demonstrates what salvation through Christ means.
But I think that this stand is taken retroactively, meaning IMO that the tendency since the formulation of the canon has been to gloss over fundamental differences between groups of early Christians over what "salvation" actually meant and what differing attitudes about human nature these differing beliefs reflected. IOW, this is not merely a debate over whether good works reflect right belief (as in Paul) or whether good works reinforce right belief (as in James) -- but also a debate over whether the transformation is immediate ("in the blink of an eye" as in Paul) or progressive and ongoing (as is reflected for example in the Gospel of Matthew), and also a debate over what that transformation reflects and brings about.
However I do not think that I am perceiving a false dilemma. I think that there is a real and obvious tension between the maintenance of the church as a worldly body, and individual mystical or spiritual experience. When the church becomes a worldly body, by which I mean a socially authoritative structure, I think that of necessity it takes on a pragmatism not reflected in "naive" mysticism. Authority always tends to mistrust mysticism, witness for example the trial of Meister Eckhart for heresy, unfounded but intended for political reasons to harass him.
In the early church this dissonance was reflected in the tensions groups like the Valentinians and the Montanists, and later the Donatists, experienced in their dealings with the central church in Rome. The more authoritative the church became, the more heated these struggles became, until they erupted into violence.
My phrasing of the dilemma I perceive is awkward and reflects an issue largely formulated by Christianity post-Protestantism. But the dilemma I'm trying to understand is a perennial problem, one not unique to Christianity and one not unique to modern theology. What I am attempting to do is to learn to what extent the dilemma existed at the time the NT was written.
Since the historical record appears to show Jerusalem as the center of Christian power at the time of Paul, we might see Paul as a radical within the church struggling against the central authority of James. Acts 21, for example, appears to show Paul being coerced into compromise with James ("Do what we tell you"). Paul's letter to the Galatians demonstrates Paul's differences with James' focus on matters like circumcision and eating only kosher meat. Paul's writings appear to be as much a radical response to the authority of James as they are a statement of theological position. But to what extent that is true, I do not yet know.