The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Romans 3:7 and 2cor 11:5,10.fundamentally show everything that is wrong with Pauline Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 90405
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Round 1 acceptance 2 and 3 rebuttals or arguments. As you see fit.


I accept your debate. I will argue that the two verses you mentioned (Rom 3:7 & II Cor 11:5-10) do not show everything wrong with Pauline Christianity. Since you have not defined that, I will take the liberty to do so and it is just the teachings of the apostle Paul through the Gospels that he has written contained in the Bible. Since you have to show that these verses show everything wrong with Pauline Christianity, the burden of proof will be on you.

I await to recieve your response and read what objections you have against Pauline Christianity, and look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Romans 3:7
World English Bible
For if the truth of God through my lie abounded to his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
New International Version
Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?"
Does God need man to be glorious? What about the endless eternity in which man did not exist but God existed? Was God not glorious then and only attained glory through the creation of man? How can a man claim that God needs a lie to enhance his glory? Glory is defined as "high renown or honor won by notable achievements" and this by the way is a definition that is befitting man not God, for truly God is above such a definition that itself has limitations. The claim made by Paul is tantamount to saying that If you tell a lie about God and people believe that lie, then you are doing something good because that lie is asking them to do something good, Praise be to God beyond such an evident impurity. Would you lie about your father to make people follow him, isn't this the definition of a sinner? Yet then, how can one lie about God and demand respect on account of that lie? God is not in need of man's lies and if man's belief in God or obedience increased God's glory, then by all account no man would disbelieve or disobey him, it is events like death which was can arguably say are God's will because no man has a say in that matter whether righteous or a liar, for death is the common lot, so would be things that increase God's glory if his glory could be increased even by a straw's weight by man. From the beginning of time until the time of Saul/Paul are we claiming that men who stood by the truth failed God and it was this lie that increased his glory? Yet Jesus in his life time never told any man that he would increase God's glory nor did he condone lies. it is the teaching of Paul that have stained his version of Christianity with this arrogant preposition. How many men of " faith" have given lie to the truth with the mindset similar to this? It has been seen in history numerous times, Pope Urban II launching the crusades and claiming that God wills it, and continuing to absolve men of sin to raise money for this war effort, in the modern age, he would be called a war criminal. But to reach such a level of boldness, One needs scriptural this case, Romans 3:7 , if by my lie that God wills it, we are able to rule the Holy land, why am I condemned a war criminal? Are we to believe that if man does not obey God, his glory shall diminish? There is no proof of this in scripture another example of how arrogant men have become that they claim to subject there creator to there desires! A lie is a lie, if we believe that God condones lies, then we can arguably say that scripture could also be one big lie, and God is above such things. Rather it is man who has the audacity to kill others without right and has the audacity to oppress and claim himself a prophet of God that would see no problem with lying about God. If God needs man to enhance his glory, does this not mean that God is not self sufficient?

World English Bible
For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.
New International Version
I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

Did God reveal to Paul by an angel or vision that he was at the same level as the apostles of Jesus? For a man to reckon himself and as such take the power of judgment into his hands, is if anything indicative of a false sense of arrogance. How can a sinner , (by the fact that he was proudly oppressing the followers of Jesus , then one day reformed) claim that he was at the same level as the apostles whose feet Jesus washed, who loved and supported Jesus while they were alive , to whom a last supper was given? The notion that somehow a stranger who came after Jesus and never met him in person could have a similar rank as the apostles is ridiculous as this would mean that any human being would make a similar claim, and how many have made such claims! False prophets who all claim sanctity, but I contend that had it not been for Paul's liberal play on scripture, such false gods and prophets may not have been so prevalent . what is to stop one man from making similar claims?
on one hand a man claims that his lies make God greater and on the other he claims that he is not inferior to those that God chose to be in the company of Jesus. Is this not the pattern we have seen repeating in history with various variations?
Hitler said, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.", and like sheep many follow him to this day.
God is not a man that he should lie, God is not weak that he should depend on man, God is not helpless that he is need.
If Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, why would God sent to them a man that took pride in lying about God and yet to the non gentiles he sent to them men who were not liars? When has God ever lied to man? Indeed it is man who is a persistent liar.
Jesus, the truthful said
John 5:43
New International Version
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
New International Version
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.


As I had percieved from the objection raised by Pro, the misunderstanding here is due to a lack of context. For simplicity's sake, I will use ESV and there is nothing peculiar about this version besides the convenience that I possess a printed version of it. In order to defend my position I will start by showing what the verses actually say and continue by defending against the objections raised.

I will start with Romans 3. The first few verses (1-8) of this chapter are talking about whether Jew have a superior position before God than Gentiles. What is important to recognize in the writing style of Paul is that in this particular chapter he repeatedly states the thoughts of a human's sinful nature and then corrects them. Pro has quoted Paul out of context by using what Paul satirically says as his actual opinion. This will be obvious when we look at the context and the verses:

"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oraclesof God. What is some were unfaithful? Does that faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though everyone one were a liar, as it it written,

That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come? - as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just." Romans 3:1-8

So if you see the recurring pattern in the passage, Paul is barely stating his own position but anticipating the possible objections to his claims. He even clearly indicated it by stating that he is speaking in a “human” way and what he means by this is that his sentence there conveys the ideas of an unsaved man, and not himself. Paul does not encourage one to lie so that God may be glorified, and actually teaches the opposite. Paul teaches in the verses right after this that no one is righteous and that they cannot add glory to God, hence he would whole heartedly agree with you when you said that God doesn’t need man to glorify Himself because He truly doesn’t. Paul quotes the psalms in his gospel of the Romans in chapter 3 verse 10 – 12.

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” Romans 3: 10-12

“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.” Romans 6:12

Paul does not teach to lie or sin, and condemns them. He teaches that we can only be righteous before God through faith as our works are inadequate. This is consistent with the rest of scripture and hence your objection that Paul promotes lying to glorify God is not true. That was him speaking on behalf of those raising objections and not his teaching which is shown throughout even the book of Romans.

Moving on to the next verse:

“I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!”

This one is less to do with the textual context, but more to do with the historical context. Paul, an ex-persecutor of Christians, had converted and began preaching the Gospel and is not inferior to the other apostles appointed by Jesus. The reason I say this is because Jesus appointed him too, and it is not by works or anything else that men receive a standing before God, but through faith in Jesus which he undoubtedly had. The apostles are not somehow super human, they are people just like us who received the direct guidance of Jesus.

In Acts 22: 6-21 Paul gives his personal testimony, and this was written by Luke, an apostle who recognized this as God’s doing, so who is pro to judge the approval of the apostle Luke who chose to accept Paul. Paul interacted directly with Jesus just as the other apostles did, and I would argue that the washing of feet, and eating the last supper with Jesus did not make the 12 apostles any holier. The biggest example is Judas, who Jesus did all of the things you mentioned to but did he believe in Christ? No! Unlike what you think, being with Jesus or his apostle does not give you a justified standing before God and in this perspective, Paul is no less than the other apostles as he was appointed by Jesus Himself, and had shown the fruits of his faith.

To end off, you asked how a person who just met Jesus can have better standing than the apostles, and I will answer this with the event of Jesus’ crucifixion. Luke 23: 41-43

“ ‘And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man (Jesus) has done nothing wrong.’ And he said, ‘ Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’ ”

Jesus never said that to any of the apostles, but he gave this privilege to a ‘stranger’ who only believed in Him, for even though he had sinned greatly, Faith in Jesus is what brings salvation. Hence, Paul needs to have been present for Jesus ministry to be on the same level as the apostles who are justified by faith, not works or actions.

The examples you have brought against Paul are not what he is saying (Romans) , or unjustified accusations (II Cor). I would like to see why you still believe that these verses show everything wrong with him, even when the context is showing he is not. Cherry picking is not the best way to convict someone of guilt. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


Starting with Romans 3, Yes the first few verses are talking about jews, but Romans 3:7 is not talking about jews, it does not say if there is in the singular, if my, and Paul who was talking is not a jew at this point. Pro is simply trying to whitewash the evident scriptural truth by attempting to mask the reality of this statement by somehow saying that Paul was talking about the sinfulness of man's nature and the likes. However, the end of that verse states, ( i am using the new international version-which con somehow claims that is less convenient than ESV) , "8 Why not say"as some slanderously claim that we say""Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just!" Paul clearly says that Their condemnation is just, what does this have to do with human nature of how he writes this is as clear as day and night, he is referring to those who condemn him not those who condemn man's sinful nature. Yes, if you read the verses one can see that Paul is simply justifying in an arrogant manner any objections to his claims. Hoe can one say that Paul is merely stating his opinion when 1.He ends the verse by claiming that good will come from his evil so as to say the end justifies the means , and those who object can object all they want 2.( i speak in a human way) was not part of the bible it is added ESV commentary that con is cherry picking( a claim he levels against me) so as to make this commentary appear as part of scripture and thus validate his opinions. 3.In verses 10-12 Paul is talking about sin, he does not claim as you can clearly read that his explanation for people not being righteous is an allusion to the fact that those who would condemn him of his lie should remember that they too are sinners and should be concerned about their own lies, this is a subtle but arrogant way of redirecting criticism. Paul clearly said,But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?(Romans 3:7 ESV)1. if through MY LIE, how then can con claim that Paul condemned lieing? The words are clear , he had issue with being condemned for his lie which he believed was bringing God's truth, but is God weak that he needs man to bring truth through lies? This is clearly an attempt by con to explain away what is apparent, Paul does teach with these words that if you lie to bring about good for God it is okay, you should not be condemned a sinner; an example ( as earlier stated) that many have followed. if Paul did not teach that lieing was acceptable and that God's truth could be propagated by lies, many an early missionaries would have told the people "Hail, behind us comes your conqueror, your colonizer" but nay , the primitive ungodly man was deceived under the pretext that liberty from false gods was being granted, why then if Paul did not preach that this was okay, were the crusades not started by a lie? A lie that would return Jerusalem into the hands of rome and by that result abounding God's truth? Even the blind can see this.
Our works before God being inadequate does not mean that Paul is condemning lies , nor does being righteous mean this, in fact by his definition, righteous names could mean doing whatever is necessary be it unjust war (even if Jesus said turn the other cheek ) and lies to abound God's glory. Con is dismissive of obvious truths, using ESV to attempt to potray Paul as a simple theologian discussing the weak man is ridiculous, He did not address the objections whether legitimate or illegitimate and simply as if with a magic wand claimed that those objections are irrelevant as he was doing what was good for God, is this if not anything the definition of arrogance. but dont listen to me let us use the words of Paul the truthful,
1 Corinthians 9:20"22(ESV)
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became mas one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
KEY WORDS:BY ALL MEANS, need i say more? This discussion was about the Romans 3:7 but con attempted to use an argument that compelled me to use other verses, if Paul himself practiced deceit, would he forbid his followers the same?
2 cor 12:16
Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!
Indeed Paul, you caught con by trickery.
Next verse:
Historical context? What does this have to do with the verse at hand? if this was the case then most verses of the bible should be interpreted only in a historical context , "less to do with textual context" is this how you perceive the word of God? if your claim is true that Paul was only saying this because he had been a former persecutor of the church and was through faith a new man , why then did Paul say , " 1 Corinthians 15:9-10
" For I am the least of the Apostles, which am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.
But by the grace of God I am that I am: and his grace which is in me, was not in vain: but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me." Will you say that this was "historical" when he boosts that he is better than those whose feet Jesus washed? He compares himself equal to all the other apostles combined, what is this if not a sense of pride?
Did luke write the book of Acts?
There is no scriptural truth of this besides concoctions and analogies and on top of that Luke a companion of Paul is not the same as Luke the apostle. Hece the claim that an apostle followed Paul is ludicrous.
wikipedia states
The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[3][4] This Luke is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).
The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was nearly unanimous in the early Christian church
The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians
so where is your proof from scripture that Luke the apostle followed Paul or will your lie abound God's glory.

Now who is cherry picking?


HSamei1999 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 2 years ago
@itruthseeker..its sunday
Posted by isaacthemaniac 2 years ago
also not all Christians subscribe to the teachings of Paul
Posted by isaacthemaniac 2 years ago
they could but I would debate contrary to that and the "people" would vote
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Someone could just run a kritik and argue there's no such thing as Pauline Christianity (as opposed to another kind)
Posted by isaacthemaniac 2 years ago
Thats why i will debate my assertion
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
I don't see how you can support your claim.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 2 years ago
Ah.......we meet again.....:)
Posted by iTruthSeeker 2 years ago
If nobody accepts by Sunday. i'll accept
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iTruthSeeker 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Agree(d) with Con both before and after, Con had better grammar consistency in his 1st round whereas Pro had many grammatical errors, conduct goes to Pro however due to Con's forfeiture