Was Paul an abrasive preacher or filled with compassion?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

So Paul was more "Gen Patton" then "Mr. Smith" (Jimmy Stewart).

I'm sure he didn't curse like Gen. Patton.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think there is a difference in being anointed and bold and just being rude and impatient. We wouldn't be telling the truth if we didn't say we have experienced both.

I love anointed preaching and ministry when you can feel His Spirit confirming his Word and the words spoken, but when you get the rude cuts just to make a point and it falls flat - it's just not good.

I guess what I am trying to say is we can't paint Paul in a total frame as "abrasive". If we do that it gives and has given men an women the idea that they don't have to handle the sheep in any other way than as a "cowboy" and not a "shepherd".

I agree that we cant paint with too broad a brush, but that cuts both ways. being too soft leads to nothing. Pauls fights were not with sinners he was trying to win. Pauls conflicts were with others in the ministry who were acting in a way he felt was dammaging to the flock. He also didnt pull any punches when confronting sin in the church.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I agree that we cant paint with too broad a brush, but that cuts both ways. being too soft leads to nothing. Pauls fights were not with sinners he was trying to win. Pauls conflicts were with others in the ministry who were acting in a way he felt was dammaging to the flock. He also didnt pull any punches when confronting sin in the church.

I agree with you. We can't paint a broad brush either way.

I don't think he pulled any punches with the church. I believe as in I Timothy 1:15 and Ephesians 3:8 he always reminded the church that he remembered where he came from.

Philippians 1:8 "bowels" meaning "pity, sympathy, inward affection".

They could take what he had to say because he had prevailing love toward them and mentioned it often.

[Praxeas]

Maybe sometimes he was abrasive when necessary and sometimes he was compassionate when necessary. Why does everything have to be one thing or another?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Maybe sometimes he was abrasive when necessary and sometimes he was compassionate when necessary. Why does everything have to be one thing or another?

Prax there were times when he was more abrasive than necessary.

Paul, like the rest of us, was flawed.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Maybe sometimes he was abrasive when necessary and sometimes he was compassionate when necessary. Why does everything have to be one thing or another?

It doesn't and shouldn't be one way or the other. I've been given the impression that it is one way - abrasive and I just don't agree.

I'm venting and don't plan on going into any detail. Just heard it through the years and a comment made the other day just made me want to put it to question.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Prax there were times when he was more abrasive than necessary.

Paul, like the rest of us, was flawed.

I think it's in the eyes of the reader. When I heard that comment made many years ago along the lines of justifying an abrasive way of preaching because of how Jesus handled the moneychangers, and incidentally I now term that "The Moneychangers Syndrome" (), I sat down and slowly read through what Paul wrote.

It was a very spiritual experience. I felt his deep, loving passion for God's people, strength in his God, power in his confidence and can never see him in any other light.

After he was found "haling/dragging" men and women into prison, I imagine he softened after he heard, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."

He could never be the same. I can't see him, after that incident, being an abrasive man at heart.

There are too many scriptures where he humbles himself to the church and confesses his love and welfare for them.

[Ron]

I can only sharte one verse from Bro Paul.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think it's in the eyes of the reader. When I heard that comment made many years ago along the lines of justifying an abrasive way of preaching because of how Jesus handled the moneychangers, and incidentally I now term that "The Moneychangers Syndrome" (), I sat down and slowly read through what Paul wrote.

It was a very spiritual experience. I felt his deep, loving passion for God's people, strength in his God, power in his confidence and can never see him in any other light.

After he was found "haling/dragging" men and women into prison, I imagine he softened after he heard, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."

He could never be the same. I can't see him, after that incident, being an abrasive man at heart.

There are too many scriptures where he humbles himself to the church and confesses his love and welfare for them.

The story of Jesus and the money changers is very interesting. The bible says he sat down and made a whip. in other words he considerd deeply what he would say and do. it was not an off the cuff event.

Paul however, clearly went too far with Barnabus over John Mark. we see at the end of Pauls life a clear change. He said "send John Mark to me for he is profitable to me" clearly Paul softened with time.

Understanding Paul requires understanding that the epistles and the book of Acts span his lifetime. it takes a few hours to read it. but he lived it for a very long time. we can forget that.

What Paul was in the beginning was wreckless. what he was at the end of his life, was quite different.

This is the reason, I still belive that Pauls thorn was his own personality.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Bishop SC Johnson built the largest Oneness Apostolic Holiness church in existance while he was alive and he was quite abrasive.

An AMEN to that.